Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended with their Address of 18th March, was pleased to receive the same very graciously and to give the following Answer:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parlimpent.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House, That their Address of 1st April relating to Ministers of the Crown had been presented to Her Majesty; and that Her Majesty had been pleased to receive the same very graciously and to give the following Answer:

I have received your Address praying that the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (Dissolution) Order 1974 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on 16th January in the last Session of the last Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Millbay Docks (Russian Fishing Vessels)

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, on security grounds, he will not grant facilities at the Millbay Docks, Plymouth, to Russian fishing vessels.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): I have no wish to interfere with the commercial use of Millbay Docks.

Miss Fookes: In that case, can the right hon. Gentleman give me and the House a categoric assurance that there is no security risk whatever in these ships visiting the port?

Mr. Mason: I am satisfied that there is no security risk to the commercial operations of the port through the use of it by the Russian commercial fleet.

Pay Review Body

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet received the recommendation of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; what action he intends to take; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): No, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the time of the year when the forces' pay increase is due? Is he further aware that if their position in relation to other types of employment is to be restored they will need a substantial pay increase? Will he give an assurance that he will do his best to make sure that they receive it?

Mr. Rodgers: I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. There is considerable concern about this. He will know the procedures that are normally


followed. We hope that the Review Body will report as soon as possible.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Can the Minister say whether it accords with the Government's ideas of social justice that a soldier on duty in Northern Ireland doing perhaps 112 hours per week or more should be able to earn only one-third as much as can be earned by a fit young miner?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that this is the time for speculation on what is or is not my view of social justice. The House is fully aware of the peculiar and difficult conditions of soldiers serving in Northern Ireland. I am sure that this will be one of the factors which the Review Body will take into account.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Minister remember that Service pay today is very low in comparison with pay in industry? Is it right that Service men should need to receive rent and rate rebates for their accommodation? Does he not think that an increase in pay of at least 14 per cent. is necessary? Will he do everything in his power to hurry things up with the Review Body to get something done before the end of April?

Mr. Rodgers: It would undermine the independence of the Review Body, to which all hon. Members attach the greatest significance, if I speculated on the level of increase which would be proper. In so far as the hon. Gentleman is expressing general concern, I can tell him that this is shared. I hope that the Review Body will report soon. I expect that the usual procedures will be followed by which any settlement will be backdated to the accustomed date.

Leave (Overseas Personnel)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the financial arrangements for Service personnel and their families to enable them to return to the United Kingdom on leave; how frequently they are given leave; and

what provisions are made for any emergency recall that may become necessary.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): The detailed regulations are complex and voluminous. However, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table which Summarises the main arrangements for leave travel to the United Kingdom at public expense in all three Services.

Mr. Redmond: When I read the OFFICIAL REPORT, will I find the answer to a question put to me recently? A constituent of mine said that it would be some time before her son serving in Gibraltar could come home on leave because he was required to deposit £80 against the contingency of an emergency recall. Is that true? If it is, what does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. John: I hope that in the answer he receives in the OFFICIAL REPORT the hon. Gentleman will find sufficient information for his purposes. If, however, he wishes to raise a specific point, it would be fair to his constituent and to me that he should table a specific Question or write to me separately. If he does that, I undertake to examine the question with sympathy.

Mr. Churchill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary recently said that he might look favourably upon a request from the Price sisters' mother to fly to this country at the expense of the taxpayers to visit her daughters? Would it not be monstrous if this were to happen while similar facilities were denied to British troops in Northern Ireland?

Mr. John: The question raised by the hon. Gentleman is not one for me and is on an entirely different matter. If he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, as he is obviously impatient to do, he will see that there are arrangements for the return of Service men to the United Kingdom at public expense.

Following is the table:

LEAVE TRAVEL AT PUBLIC EXPENSE FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL



Navy Return Journeys to United Kingdom
Army Return Journeys to United Kingdom
Royal Air Force Return Journeys to United Kingdom


1. Single





A. Germany, Belgium and Holland.
1 per year.
1 per year and 1 at charter pre-payment rates annually.
1 per year and 1 at charter pre-payment rates annually.


B. Cyprus
1 per tour of at least 2 years
1 per tour of at least 2 years
1 per tour of at least 2 years


C. Gibraltar
Special leave Scheme.
1 per tour of at least 2 years.
1 per tour of at least 2 years.


D. Elsewhere
Various special leave schemes.
Special leave scheme for Persian Gulf
Nil


2. Married Unaccompanied (including widowed or divorced personnel having custody of their children)





A. Germany, Belgium and Holland
Up to 3 journeys per annum.
Up to 3 journeys per annum.
Up to 3 journeys per annum.


B. Elsewhere
1 during tour of at least 2 years.
As Navy
As Navy



2 for tours between 2½ and 3 years.





3 for tours of 3½years or more.




3.Married Accompanied





A. Germany
1 during 3 year tour
1 during 3 year tour for whole family.
Nil


B. SHAPE and APCENT
1 per 2 year tour
1 per 2 year tour
Nil


C. Elsewhere
A few special leave schemes.
Special leave scheme for Persian Gulf
A few special leave schemes.

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a progress report on the multi-rôle combat aircraft in terms of its closeness to cost estimates and to its development programme.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made with developing the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when a commitment has to be made in respect of multi-rôle combat aircraft production.

Mr. William Rodgers: The first prototype MRCA aircraft is undergoing final stages of ground testing prior to its first flight at Manching in Germany.
There has been some slippage in the programme but the cost of the current phase of development, measured at constant prices, is very close to the estimate made at the outset.
We are reviewing all aspects of the project with our German and Italian partners before authorising the next phase of development, which will cover the flight test programme and the continuation of development to the point where serious production orders can be placed. Production orders will not be placed before the second half of 1975.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister of State give me an assurance that, despite the proposed reductions in defence spending, there will be no cut in the RAF order for this crucial aeroplane which is so necessary to our defences?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman must know that I cannot give an assurance in the terms in which he requests it. It is right that every current project should have the same status in the course of the defence review. That does not


mean that we do not appreciate the great importance attached to this aircraft.

Mr. Allaun: Was not the original estimate of the cost £1½ million per aircraft, and has not the cost already escalated to £9 million per plane, according to our West German colleagues, without a single plane yet being in the air? As Parliament and the people are entitled to know, will my hon. Friend state what he thinks is the latest estimate for this enormously expensive aircraft which will make Concorde, which some people describe as a white elephant, look like a veritable mouse?

Mr. Rodgers: I understand what my hon. Friend says about the escalation of costs, which for many years I have been concerned with as something which appears to be a habit when aircraft projects are involved. I can only say, on the best evidence available to me, that there is better cost control on this occasion than there has been on some other occasions. I will certainly see whether additional information can be published. As my hon. Friend knows, it has not been the custom in the past to give detailed information of this kind, although I have always taken the view that in principle, if there are no security considerations, disclosure followed by scrutiny is the best defence of the public purse.

Mr. Warren: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the research and development cost and work-sharing no longer reflect the production orders which are required by the Royal Air Force, the Italian Air Force and the German Air Force? In the period up to the time when he places production orders in 1975, will he consider the desirability of getting the work-sharing back on to a basis equivalent to that of the RAF order, which is the major order of the three countries concerned?

Mr. Rodgers: A complicated formula is involved, but I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to look at his precise point.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to compete with America and, indeed, even to survive, the British aircraft industry must have long production runs like the

MRCA? Does he also agree that it is useless for hon. Members to ask for an independent foreign and defence policy if we have to rely on America for military aircraft?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend puts his finger on several real and related problems concerning the defence programme and employment—for example, the need, if possible, to have aircraft and other equipment in conjunction with our allies of the kind that the forces require. Nevertheless, as I say, all these matters must be taken into account in deciding how these projects should proceed.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does not the Minister agree that this project is of the utmost importance not only to the British aircraft industry but also to the prospects of weapon collaboration in Europe? In view of the well-known and expensive predilection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for buying American aircraft, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will do everything within his power to resist any such pressures from the Treasury?

Mr. Rodgers: It is the rôle of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I hope of every other Chancellor, to make sure that public money is well spent. Obviously this must be related to the requirements of the Ministry of Defence and the Services.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Low-flying Training

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what directions he has given about low-flying training in Wales, or elsewhere; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John: None, Sir, but I shall be giving the matter my close personal attention. As the hon. Member is aware, it has been the policy of successive Governments to ensure that low-level training is conducted in such a way as to cause the minimum of disturbance to the general public. I can assure the hon. Member that this will also be my policy and that the arrangements will be kept under continuing review.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer started extremely well but afterwards deteriorated a little? Will he bear in mind that low-flying training is absolutely essential? Will he screw up his political courage and not give way to the bleatings of Plaid Cymru and similar people who wish to prevent the RAF from training?

Mr. John: If my answer started well, it obviously had an advantage in that respect over the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I have made clear that I accept the necessity for low-level flying, but I equally made clear that I shall be scrutinising it to ensure that public inconvenience is minimised.

Mr. David Stoddart: Will my hon. Friend accept that I welcome his answer? When I have been in North Wales on holiday I have been bombarded with noise from these aircraft. When the Minister is considering this question, will he also consider the question of low-flying aircraft over Swindon from Lyneham airfield which causes great inconvenience to my constituents in certain parts of the town?

Mr. John: Just as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) showed great concern over Wales, I hope that it will not be improper for me as a Welshman to show similar concern over Swindon. I will certainly look at any cases that my hon. Friend has to show me.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of the Midlands low-flying aircraft are causing a good deal of distress? Will he assure the House that there is no liaison between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, because as soon as an observation unit from the Home Office came into position for a fortnight all low-level flying ceased for that period?

Mr. John: I assure the hon. Gentleman of that. All low-level flying is reviewed by the Ministry of Defence and is to that extent independent of the Home Office. I will keep the matter in review, and if the hon. Gentleman has any cases to refer to my attention he is welcome to do so.

Electronic and Laser-directed Bombs

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is considering, in his review of defence expenditure, the potential military significance of electronically or laser-directed bombs; if the development of such bombs is contemplated ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: At present no such weapons are being developed in the United Kingdom, although the techniques are being studied.

Mr. Fletcher: Is my hon. Friend aware that I tabled the Question merely to get the information and that no sting is contained in my supplementary question? Does he agree that, if the claims made for it by American commentators are substantiated, this type of small bomb could profoundly affect the nature and scale of aerial operations and might make it possible to some extent to reduce defence expenditure without in any way impairing military efficiency?

Mr. Rodgers: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says. It was with those considerations in mind that we thought it right to have these weapons evaluated.

Diego Garcia

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an official visit to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Mason: I have no plan to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: What was the exact nature of the undertaking given by the Conservative Prime Minister to the Americans on the militarisation of the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Mason: On 5th February the Conservative administration agreed in principle to the extension of facilities at Giego Garcia. I understand that it involved lengthening the runway from 8,000 to 12,000 ft. and also increasing the shipping facilities.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Secretary of State give that wise and farsighted consideration which he is so well


qualified to give to the whole subject of the broader issue of the defence of trade routes in the Indian Ocean? Will he assure the House that this subject will be fully covered in his Defence White Paper?

Mr. Mason: Yes, I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the assurance that the subject will be covered in the defence review and, quite likely, mentioned in the Defence White Paper. He is also right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that trade routes are involved in the Indian Ocean. There is increased Soviet naval activity in that area, and if the Suez Canal is opened the USSR will be 6,000 miles nearer to the Indian Ocean than it is now.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain specific pledges were given to Mauritius in 1967 by the then Labour Government about the non-development of this base? Will he look into those pledges and give an assurance that they will be honoured? Is he also aware that the proposed developments are offensive to three major Commonwealth countries—India, Malaysia and Australia?

Mr. Mason: I shall look into that point. Before Her Majesty's Government make up their mind about the future development of Diego Garcia, we shall take notice of the views of the littoral States.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the Secretary of State agree that on the whole it is desirable that successive Governments should keep international agreements which have been entered into by previous Governments? Since Labour's record in this matter is not good elsewhere, will he try to rectify the situation in respect of Diego Garcia?

Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who so recently occupied my office, should be so cynical. We do not read the situation in that way. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there are mixed views in America on this subject and that the Senate Appropriations Committee has just turned down a proposal to spend $29 million on this expansion.

Indian Ocean

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of ship-day visits to the Indian Ocean area during the past year by naval forces from Great Britain; and if he is satisfied with this number in comparison with the visits paid by the United States of America and Russia, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): Ships of the Royal Navy spent nearly 1,000 ship-days in the Indian Ocean in the past year. As my right hon. Friend announced on 21st March, we are currently reviewing all our defence commitments and capabilities. —[Vol. 870, c. 153–4.]

Mr. Mather: In view of the reports that the Seychelles is asking for independence, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is seeking exclusive facilities in the Seychelles for British naval vessels following that country's independence?

Mr. Judd: Our general policy in this respect is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Government undertake a study as to the facilities needed for B52 bombers, KC135 jet aircraft and PS Orions to leave from coral atolls?

Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that we always take great note of his suggestions and will give them the attention they deserve.

Mr. Wiggin: If the Government are so rightly concerned about defending our trade routes in the Indian Ocean round the Cape, can the Minister say why or for what reason the recent idiotic decision was made to prevent the Royal Yacht calling at Simonstown when the agreement is well-established by both Conservative and Labour Governments?

Mr. Judd: Naval visits as a whole are under review. There was no strong reason for the Royal Yacht to call at Cape Town and the visit was therefore cancelled. Our overall policy towards South Africa is still under review.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about security operations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mason: Army operations in urban, rural and border areas have continued with the aim of preventing terrorist activity and inhibiting the movement of weapons and explosives. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on Thursday, these operations will continue in support of the progressively increasing rôle to be played by the civilian law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While appreciating the difficulty that sometimes occurs concerning IRA funerals, may I ask whether it was a military or a political decision that permitted uniformed IRA men—accompanied, it is reported, by six bands—to perform a ceremony near Armagh city centre the other day?

Mr. Mason: I am not aware of the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but since he has raised the matter I shall look into it and write to him.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement recently made by the Eire Minister of Defence on BBC radio to the effect that no-go areas exist in Northern Ireland in which the British Army cannot operate? The Eire Defence Minister also cited as an example South Armagh and went on to say that there was no part of the Eire border where Eire troops could not operate. In view of that statement, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Army is active all along the border and dealing with terrorists? Secondly, will he comment on the incident last Saturday in which shots were fired from the Eire side of the border at a British Army helicopter?

Mr. Mason: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that Her Majesty's Forces are operating in any part of Northern Ireland they wish. There is the problem on the border, and I hope that Ministers in the South will recognise that we require much more co-operation than hitherto from both the Army and the Garda.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been considerable escalation in Londonderry, with rocket and bombing attacks on the headquarters and sniping at least two or three times a day? What is being done to alleviate the situation? Where are these rockets and bombs coming from, since they seem to be going in increasing quantities into the Londonderry area?

Mr. Mason: There is a Question later on the Order Paper on the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Apart from what have been spectacular bombing incidents, the figures show that prior to Operation Motorman the number of shooting incidents was 1,738 but in the last quarter of 1973 they fell to 300 and in the first quarter of 1974 the figure was down to 273. Therefore, the trend is downward. The same trend is shown for bombings, except for one or two spectacular incidents of late.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the SAS Unit of the British Army are currently serving in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mason: None, Sir.

Mr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very comprehensive negative. Can he also give the House an assurance that no members of the Regular Army have been or are involved in any operations on the territory of the Irish Republic? Can he also tell us how many troops of Regular units are required to mount counter-insurgence duties in Northern Ireland without uniforms or military identification?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give the numbers but, as my hon. Friend obviously knows, there are a number of our forces serving in plain clothes performing surveillance duties and other security operations. In view of the conditions in Northern Ireland, they are absolutely necessary, too.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he expects to have with Defence Ministers of NATO countries.

Mr. Mason: I am looking forward to meeting my ministerial colleagues at the


forthcoming NATO spring meetings and at other times when we have business to do together.

Mr. Dixon: When the right hon. Gentleman has those discussions, will he satisfy himself that the American Secretary for Defence will not be a party to any withdrawal of American troops from Europe? If this seems to be a likelihood, will he bring strong pressure to bear on his French and German colleagues to encourage them to allot a much larger proportion of their gross national product to be used for the defence of Western Europe?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the views of Dr. Kissinger and also of the concern which they arouse in Western Europe, where I think they have served a purpose. I feel that the rest of the NATO countries realise that more is expected of them as a whole because of the view taken by the Americans.

Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend make clear that if he undertakes any discussions he will represent forcibly to the Defence Ministers that this country has borne far too heavy a burden economically in the defence of Western Europe? Will he make certain that in future our part in it is considerably reduced?

Mr. Mason: If my hon. Friend looks at the figures of gross national product of Germany, France and the United Kingdom, he will see that we are paying much more than they are, but if he looks at the total sums of money expended on forces by France, Germany and Britain he will discover that we are spending less than both those countries.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give the House an assurance that the Government's proposed reduction of £50 million in defence expenditure this year will not adversely affect our contribution to NATO?

Mr. Mason: Offhand I would say that that is right, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not point an accusing finger at the Labour Government over a figure of £50 million when only last December the Conservative Government decided to cut back defence expenditure by £178 million. I should also warn the House that this year, on 1974 figures and prices, we are cutting back defence expenditure by a total of £262 million.

Royal Navy and Royal Marine Reservists

Mr. Buck: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation to enable Royal Navy and Royal Marine reservists to undertake the same obligations and receive the same benefits as apply to the TAVR.

Mr. Judd: I intend to await the outcome of the defence review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 21st March and the review of the Royal Naval Reserve which was authorised by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the previous administration before taking a decision on the requirement for such legislation.

Mr. Buck: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to act, but surely there is an anomaly here which need not await the outcome of the reviews. The anomaly is that at the moment Royal Naval reservists and Royal Marine reservists cannot get the extra £60 a year bounty. That is a small matter, and the Bill is prepared. Why cannot the Minister introduce it? There is plenty of time.

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman had plenty of time in which to introduce it. I am fully aware of the operational, morale and recruiting arguments for placing the Royal Naval reserves and the Royal Marine reserves on the same footing as the TAVR, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's new-found concern. I took these considerations into account before reaching my decision.

Mr. Buck: The hon. Gentleman talks of my new-found concern. He has a well-founded Bill showing my concern. It is all ready for him. If he brought it in now, he would have full support from the Opposition.

Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman was so keen on legislation, why did he establish a review and not take action himself?

Mr. Buck: Because we lost the General Election.

House Purchase (Service Personnel)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on his proposals to help personnel leaving Her


Majesty's Forces to buy a house of their own.

Mr. John: We have various schemes to help Service personnel to save or put down money towards house purchase. However, recent developments in the housing market have caused problems for Service people as for the rest of the community. We are therefore reviewing our schemes, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Latham: I appreciate the complexities of this matter, especially the tax problems, but will the hon. Gentleman review the situation urgently because it seriously worries constituents of mine?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is a matter of which the previous administration had experience for a considerable time, and it is not fair to expect the present Government to take action within a month of coming to office. The review will proceed with all necessary urgency.

Mr. Younger: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the current discussions which his right hon. Friend is said to be having about mortgages with the building societies the interests of Service men and women who wish to buy their houses will be borne in mind?

Mr. John: The interests of all who wish to purchase their houses will be borne in mind.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of variation in terms of the allocation of council houses by local authorities to people coming out of the Services? Will he look into the possibility of standardising procedures throughout the country?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the allocation of council houses is a matter for local authorities. The Ministry of Defence has on many occasions drawn their attention to the desirability of allocating houses to retiring Service men. The hon. Gentleman may take it that this will be borne in mind in the future, as it has been in the past.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the

Army Benevolent Fund has and has had for some time a scheme for advancing money to people leaving the Services solely for the purpose of buying houses?

Mr. John: Yes, Sir.

International Peace-keeping

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the training of the officers in Her Majesty's Forces includes any aspect of international peacekeeping under the United Nations.

Mr. Judd: Normal Service training already covers the skills and knowledge required for United Nations peace-keeping duties; no further special training is necessary although those detailed to such duties would certainly be given appropriate briefing beforehand.

Mr. Hooley: I know of my hon. Friend's personal interest in this matter and I welcome his reply, so far as it goes. Does he accept, however, that now that we have two major peace-keeping exercises under the United Nations in Cyprus and in Sinai this is a matter to which Her Majesty's Forces might give greater attention than in the past?

Mr. Judd: I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks, and I reciprocate them by saying that his own long-standing and constructive interest in the subject is well known both in this House and outside. This vital aspect of our policy has the constant attention of Ministers and officials and will continue to have it.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one method of improving international understanding is visits by Her Majesty's ships to the ports of different countries? So far as the present Government are preventing such visits, they are going against peace-keeping and better relations between international bodies.

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman will realise that our forces are committed to the defence of freedom, democracy and self-determination—

Mr. Kershaw: In defence of this country.

Mr. Judd: —and we are not interested in providing certificates of respectability to régimes fighting against those principles.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sidearms

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the sidearms used in the Services is manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Rodgers: About 12 per cent.

Mr. Farr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he say why, when we have in this country a good supplier of revolvers who has met the requirements of many overseas Governments, such a small proportion of our requirements is met by that supplier? Has the firm ever been sent a specification of Ministry of Defence needs?

Mr. Rodgers: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. The simple answer to the question is that the majority of these weapons in use fire standardised NATO ammunition dating from war time. Therefore the requirement that the hon. Gentleman suggests has not lately arisen.

Polaris Bases

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to initiate discussions with the NATO countries concerning the removal of Polaris bases from this country.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what period of time has been given to the United States of America to continue to maintain the Polaris submarine bases at Holy Loch.

Mr. Mason: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has already made clear, any proposal on the future of the Holy Loch base would form part of any multilateral discussions that would take place on disarmament, and the timing must be seen in this context.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, following the October war in the Middle East and President Nixon's decision to order a

nuclear alert, British lives were at stake without prior consultation with the British Government? Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it is now very much in Britain's interests for these bases to be removed, bearing in mind also that this is the official policy of the Labour Party?

Mr. Mason: On my hon. Friend's first point, there was concern in NATO circles and that has been registered. As for his second point, I can quote the Labour Party's manifesto to him and remind the House that we shall participate in multilateral disarmament negotiations and as a first step will seek the removal of American Polaris bases from the United Kingdom. However, I cannot initiate the discussions at the moment.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint American authorities with the fact that there is great feeling against these bases in Scotland and with the simple fact that 60 per cent. of the Scottish electorate support parties whose official policy is the removal of the Polaris bases? That is a large majority.

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the view of the hon. Lady. I am not satisfied that it represents Scottish opinion—

Mrs. Ewing: Sixty per cent.

Mr. Mason: —but I will take that into consideration when we consider how best to negotiate the future of the bases.

Mr. George Lawson: As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, may I press my right hon. Friend to continue to bear in mind that the defence of Western Europe, including Scotland, has to a very large extent been dependent upon the continuing presence of United States forces in this country? If my right hon. Friend finds himself under too heavy pressure on this matter, will he consult his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to secure his assessments since he is very concerned that we maintain the very best possible relations with the United States?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It may be a tinge of nationalism and the tail-end of the argument "Yanks go home". We have a number of American bases in the heartland of Britain, but we do not have the same pressure there, strangely enough.

Mr. Younger: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to convey any such impression as that suggested by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to his American counterparts about the opinion of people in Scotland? Is he aware that the Provost of Dunoon recently expressed himself as strongly of the view that local people would prefer the Polaris base to stay there?

Mrs. Ewing: Ask them.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the hon. Lady's view of Scottish public opinion on this matter is the opposite of the truth?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged for the hon. Gentleman's support. Apart from the Scottish nationalism of the affair, my party is obliged, to quote the manifesto, to
seek the removal of American Polaris bases".
But there are certain difficulties at the moment. First, the strategic arms limitation talks are going on, and they are bilateral. Secondly, the mutual and balanced force reduction talks are going on in Central Europe concerning ground forces. Therefore, I must warn the House and my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will take a little time before I can start the multilateral negotiations which are necessary in the wider context of détente and deterrence.

Lance Weapon System

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the re-equipment of the British Army with the Lance weapon system.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Member will be aware that the previous administration made arrangements, in collaboration with our allies, for the purchase of Lance as a replacement for Honest John.

Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present tactical nuclear weapons of BAOR are obsolete and undertake to continue the policy of the previous Government of replacing Honest John by the Lance weapon system?

Mr. Mason: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. However, all these weapons systems will be subject to

review during the next few months when I undertake my major defence review.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the review is likely to be finished and when we may expect the White Paper?

Mr. Mason: The White Paper will not be available until the review is complete, which will be towards the end of this year.

Castlemartin Ranges

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government have considered the proposals of the Nugent Committee about the future of the ranges at Castlemartin; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: We are considering the committee's proposals and the representations made since the report was published. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feelings about this matter in Pembroke, in Dorset and, indeed, in the Army? Is he aware that 198 quarters urgently needed by local authorities are standing empty? Will he assure me that he will take a decision on this matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, I am aware of these aspects of the problem. It is a matter that we inherited, and I agree that it is now urgent.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other decisions coming from the Nugent Committee are causing concern in other parts of the country? Therefore, a decision by the Government as soon as possible would be greatly welcomed.

Mr. Rodgers: I totally understand that concern. A decision will be taken as quickly as possible.

Meteorological Forecasts

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the level of accuracy of meteorological forecasts.

Mr. John: Given the present state of scientific knowledge and technical resources, I consider that the forecasts


issued by the Met Office have a high level of accuracy.

Mr. Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend for the details he sent me. Does he agree that they show a commendable increase in the accuracy of short-term forecasts as opposed to long-term forecasts? Will he re-examine the criteria on which the accuracy of forecasts is based as, quite frankly, they are unscientific? Will he encourage forecasters to be positive? Phrases like "mainly dry", and "occasional outbreaks of rain which may be prolonged and heavy in certain areas" evade the issue and cannot be wrong.

Mr. John: My hon. Friend can be assured that the Met Office will examine all its procedures as it goes along. It has an international reputation of which it is proud. "Mainly dry and perhaps some rain" expresses the kind of caution to which politicians are accustomed.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Minister explain to his right hon. Friend that if, as I understood him to say, there will be no Defence White Paper until the end of the year, the outlook from these benches will be stormy?

Mr. John: That will be a change from today, when it has been slightly wet.

POLICY ADVISERS

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the rôle and functions of the newly established political unit under Dr. Bernard Donoughue at No. 10 Downing Street in relation to the CPRS.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Dr. Donoughue, who has been appointed as a senior policy adviser at 10 Downing Street, has the help of a small number of specialists who concentrate on day-to-day questions of domestic policy. I am circulating a list of the members of the unit in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They will liaise closely with the Central Policy Review Staff which carries out policy analysis for Ministers collectively.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. Are all members of the unit paid from public funds? Is this bill justified in view of the party

political nature of their work? Have they all been positively vetted? How many more members of the Prime Minister's personal political staff at Downing Street are not members of this unit, and have they been positively vetted?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is "Yes, Sir". The answer to the second question is "Yes, Sir, it is justified". Previous Governments have brought in people from outside and they have been paid as civil servants. Regarding vetting, in 1964 I introduced the requirement that all members of the Prime Minister's staff, whether paid from public funds or not, must be positively vetted.

Mr. Whitehead: Is it not in the interests of good government that the office of the Prime Minister and that of the Leader of the Opposition should have highly qualified advisers like Dr. Donoughue who are full-time and paid from public funds?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I have expressed the view—it came up again yesterday—that there is a case, though it must be a matter for the Leader of the Opposition for the time being to decide, for the provision of staff to be paid from public funds.
I recall that there was one subsidiary clause of the question by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) with which I did not deal. He implied that the staff are mainly political. That is not so. When he sees the full list he will see that they come from a very wide background of experience.

Mr. Churchill: While recognising the distinction that the Prime Minister draws between property speculation conducted from his private office within the Palace of Westminster and that conducted from offices in Mayfair, may I ask whether he is aware that there is grave concern in this House and in the nation at the growth of these kitchen cabinets? Will he tell us how much the bill to the taxpayer will be for the most recent additions he has made in this respect?

The Prime Minister: There is no question of kitchen cabinets here. People have been brought in by all Prime Ministers this century. The hon. Gentleman may recall the names of some of them in a previous administration. I


dealt with these matters yesterday and there was full probing in questions afterwards.

Following is the list:

POLICY ADVISERS

Mrs. Catherine Carmichael (48), Lecturer in Social Work and Social Administration, University of Glasgow. Educated at Glasgow University and Edinburgh University. Formerly (1964–67) Adviser to Scottish Office on Reorganisation of Scottish Social Services. Member Supplementary Benefits Commission. President Scottish Pre-School Play Groups Association. (Mrs. Carmichael will work part-time.)

Mr. Andrew Graham (31), Fellow and Tutor in Economics, Balliol College, Oxford and University Lecturer in Economics. A graduate of St. Edmund Hall Oxford, Andrew Graham was formerly with the Government Economic Service as an Economic Assistant at the Department of Economic Affairs and an Economic Adviser at the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Richard Graham (35), Manager, Domestic Trunk Services, British Airways (responsible for the introduction of shuttle services on domestic trunk routes in the United Kingdom). A graduate from Durham University and McGill University, Montreal, Mr. Graham was formerly Economic Adviser with the Government Economic Service and head of the branch which deals with civil aviation matters.

Richard M. Kirwan (35), Economist, Centre for Environmental Studies. Educated Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Formerly employed as Research Fellow, University of Glasgow, Department of Social and Economic Research (1964–66) and Economic Adviser, Ministry of Transport, Economic Planning Directorate (1966–69).

David F. Piachatid (28), Lecturer in Social Administration, London School of Economics. Educated Christ Church, Oxford, and University of Michigan, USA. Formerly employed as Economist, Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the President, Washington DC, and (1966–68) Economist, Department of Health and Social Security.

Research Officer:

Adrian John Shaw (26), Research Assistant to the Leader of the Opposition, 1973–74.

Assistant Policy Adviser:

Gavyn Davies (23), Research Graduate, Balliol College, Oxford.

One or two further appointments are under consideration, including from the trade union movement and from private industry.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr. Cyril Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will now add an adviser on electoral reform to the Central Policy Review Staff.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will now add an adviser on electoral reform to the Central Policy Review Staff.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister if he will now add an adviser on electoral reform to the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not intend to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with responsibility for specific subjects, and the areas of policy which it covers must generally remain confidential to the Government.

Mr. Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. Does he agree that there is something wrong with the electoral system when the Liberal Party can poll 6 million votes and have only 14 seats? Does he consider therefore, that as a matter of urgency and on sheer grounds of justice and fair play the Government should give urgent consideration to this matter one way or the other?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be a slightly different question. The Question on the Order Paper relates to the Central Policy Review Staff. I understand the strength of feeling of some right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. If they would like to express their views and, in particular, any proposals they may have for machinery for discussing this matter, they might care to do so in the first instance through the usual channels. The question can then be looked at having regard to the feelings of the House as a whole.

Mr. Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend derive some comfort from the fact that in a recent speech the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) solemnly announced that the present administration would stay in power until the next General Election?

The Prime Minister: From the days when I knew the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) as a member of my party I have always paid the highest attention to his weighty pronouncements, though I was a little disappointed—since the hon. Gentleman left my party because the then Labour Government put a fixed control on rent increases and he wanted to increase rents in Rochdale—that he


did not move a censure motion on the Government for this year's rent freeze.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the Conservative Government introduced the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland they had to rely to a great extent on the volunteer efforts of the Electoral Reform Society? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be undesirable, if Kilbrandon is to be implemented, if his Government had to rely on a volunteer society, with hard-pressed officers, to a still greater extent?

The Prime Minister: That sounds a slightly different question. The Electoral Reform Society has been very much engaged by all sorts of organisations on recent matters of great public importance.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the laughter following the answer to the last supplementary question but one, may I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that there is a real possibility—indeed, it may be the right thing—of this Government not remaining in power without thero being a General Election? It could be that a broader-based Government without an election is the best answer to our present-day problems.

The Prime Minister: I always listen to the hon. Gentleman's comments, on whichever side of the House he sits, with great interest. He cannot expect to get a recount next time.

Mr. Marks: Would it not be undemocratic to have a system that forced the country to accept the policies of a political party that received only 6 million votes?

The Prime Minister: It has been wisely said that we are all minority parties in this House and that a situation could arise in which the decisive voice was not from a party that received 6 million votes but from a group from Northern Ireland or wherever it might be. I think that we are getting a long way from the Central Policy Review Staff which, fortunately, is above all these matters in its considerations.

Mr. Steel: The Prime Minister earlier suggested that instead of the CPRS we might use the usual channels. Does that mean that he does not exclude the possibility of setting up a Speaker's Conference on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am not excluding anything. The words I used—I considered them carefully—were that any views that any right hon. or hon. Members might have on this matter should be raised through the usual channels. I referred to any ideas they might have for the proper machinery for discussing these matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chief Whip of his own party and is therefore his own usual channel, might like to consider that.

GATESHEAD

Mr. Horam: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Gateshead.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Horam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the three and a half years of Conservative rule Gateshead Council did not build even one new housing estate and that three estates are more than two years behind schedule? As a result, hundreds of my constituents are living in squalor that is appalling to see, let alone to experience, and this situation can be repeated in many areas of the country. Will my right hon. Friend therefore ensure that house building—and council house building in particular—remains at the top of the Government's priorities?

The Prime Minister: On previous visits to Gateshead I have noted some of the housing and social problems mentioned by my hon. Friend. I note from him that so little progress was made during the last three and a half years. Whatever else may divide us, there is no controversy on the question that the national housing programme had totally collapsed before we came to office, and it is our task to try to revive it.

Mr. Tom King: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes to Gateshead, where one of the main concerns is the level of food prices, he may care to come to my constituency to meet many of the farmers whose responsibility it is to produce the food that is eaten by people such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). If the right hon. Gentleman visits my constituency he will realise the acute concern among beef farmers in particular


over the problems they face and their lack of confidence in the future.

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman represents Bridgwater. I should not propose to go to Gateshead by way of Bridgwater, whatever distinguished poets may have done in the matter of Beachy Head. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been discussing some of these matters with farmers. We were elected to protect the housewife in this matter while at the same time dealing fairly with farmers and other food producers.

MELTON

Q4. Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the Melton parliamentary constituency.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Latham: If the Prime Minister visits Melton, where he will be courteously received, will he explain to my farmer constituents why, for the first time in 30 years, there is no guaranteed fallback price for beef?

The Prime Minister: I have visited Melton a number of time and I should like to do so again. I regularly consume one of its principal products, no doubt produced with the help of the farmers. This matter has been discussed with farmers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. One of the problems affecting certain aspects of the price review is the particular commitment made on entering the Common Market.

CHILE

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Chile.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend be equally forthright on the matter of sending frigates and submarines to the new Chile régime? Will he stop speculation about this matter and reclaim them?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to visit Chile. I think that most hon. Members would find it singularly distasteful were any of us to do so under present circumstances. [Interruption.] Many Ministers from the previous Government arranged to go there, and so did Herr Willy Brandt. I repeat that I do not propose to go to Chile. A fortnight ago tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary answered questions about a whole list of things that we have had to consider in relation to Chile, I hope to the fairly general satisfaction of my hon. Friend. On the question of naval vessels, I think that my right hon. Friend has Questions down to him tomorrow and will answer them.

Mr. Money: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were to go to Chile he would find that a number of firms, some carrying famous East Anglia names, are making great profits for this country?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt about that. Contracts were placed in most cases under the previous Chilian Government. But since I am not going to Chile the question does not arise. Anyone who wants to go to Chile would probably want to see who were in the Chilean gaols and what kind of democracy they stood for.

Mr. Kinnock: Would it be correct to assume that my right hon. Friend's decision is based partly on the fact that the current Chilean Government are in power because they marched there over the bodies of at least 15,000 harmless citizens? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the action that he and the Government are taking and are contemplating taking gained extra validity from reports received this morning that the junta is starting to consider an amnesty for opposition forces? This is the first signal of its conceding to the world-wide pressure that is growing against the Fascist régime.

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to confirm the figure quoted by my hon. Friend but it is a fact that many people in this country from all parties, including the Leader of the Opposition and myself, interceded in the matter of certain death sentences, and as far as we know that intercession was listened to.


I cannot comment on newspaper reports about an amnesty for the political opponents of the régime in Chile, but if that is so it is a matter about which all parties can be highly satisfied and for which all parties can claim a lot of credit.

CONSTITUTION

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the staff to assist Lord Crowther-Hunt; and when the House of Commons may expect to be informed of the outcome of his consultations.

The Prime Minister: Lord Crowther-Hunt will be assisted by the appropriate staff according to the particular constitutional issues on which he is required to formulate advice. On the second part of the Question, Lord Crowther-Hunt has already started preliminary talks on the Kilbrandon Reports and arrangements are being made for the responsible Ministers to conduct discussions with various interested bodies. At this early stage I cannot say when the Government's consultations will be completed, but they will be conducted as speedily as possible.

Mr. Hamilton: Since the Kilbrandon Report rejected the concept of separatism, which is the plank on which the Scottish National Party stands, and also rejected the policy of federalism, on which the Liberal Party stands, and has not yet considered the policy on which we stand—namely, further devolution, which is the essential problem—will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Lord Crowther-Hunt will consider how best to transfer more decision-making to Scotland rather than complete separatism, which is rejected by the vast majority of Scots?

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are totally opposed to the proposals for separatism, and I understand that to be the position of the other major parties. There are certain proposals made in the various Kilbrandon Reports which seem to be worth pursuing in discussions of this kind. On what my hon. Friend said about the position, as I have interpreted its recent statement, of the Scottish Labour Party, this too will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since the Leader of the House has said that we will proceed with all possible speed on this matter, can the Prime Minister assure us that the White Paper outlining the Government's views will be published before the end of this year?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and I would hope that it will be considerably earlier than that, although I cannot give a definite commitment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In recognising the urgency of this matter, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the electorate, particularly in Scotland, has a clearly defined choice at the next election between devolution, as represented by the Labour Party, and separatism, as represented by the Scottish National Party?

The Prime Minister: I have made our position clear on separatism. My hon. Friend has published a weighty work on this matter recently with other hon. Friends. We certainly agree that the position should be clarified as quickly as possible so that the Scottish people, as well as voters in other parts of the country who are concerned with these matters, can have a clear choice.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman ignore the reactionary views of the Scottish Labour Party, which is opposed to self-government for Scotland, and recognise the growing impatience of the people of Scotland for self-government? Will he undertake that legislation will be introduced before the next General Election?

The Prime Minister: I note the implication of the hon. Member's question. He referred to reactionary views. It would be reactionary for me to refuse to consider the views of anyone in Scotland. We shall consider everyone's views.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the people of Wales have also rejected a policy of separatism and that in the recent elections 90 per cent. voted against the Welsh Nationalists?

The Prime Minister: I noted that point when it came up. Of course, the main question referring to Lord Crowther-Hunt


covers equally the future of these matters in Wales as well as in Scotland.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Plaid Cymru Party is co-operating fully in consultations with the noble Lord and that we confidently expect a White Paper to be published by 30th June?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear that I was not committing myself to any date—although I thought that the date suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) of the end of the year was too gloomy. I am not making a commitment to any particular date, but I hope that we should have it before the Summer Recess.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Speaker: Dr. Winstanley, personal explanation.

Dr. Winstanley: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
On Wednesday 3rd April a short debate took place in the House on a motion moved by the Leader of the House regarding a matter with which I was intimately concerned. For obvious reasons, I was not able to be present. Still less was I in a position to take part. However, I have now had an opportunity of studying the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I note that statements were made which I would certainly have challenged had I been in a position to do so. As it is, these statements now remain on the record unchallenged, thus implying that they are accepted. The reverse is the case.
It was suggested that I should have known that by holding this appointment I was in danger of disqualification and should, therefore, have resigned it or brought the matter up earlier. Mr. Speaker, I must insist that it was quite impossible for me to know that this part-time, fee-earning, sessional medical post, which I had held during part of a previous Parliament and which had not previously been a disqualifying office, had been converted into a form of employment with the Ministry of Defence, and had thus become disqualifying, by virtue of a letter written to me by Mr. Fred Bolton, the Director of the Royal

Ordnance Factory, Patricroft, in May 1973 under the provisions of the Contract of Employment Act. No mention whatever was made at that time of the fact that the post had thus become an office of profit under the Crown.
I must insist that the arrangement I entered into, the arrangement which subsequently put me in jeopardy with the House, whereby I would continue to be the nominal part-time medical officer at this establishment, although the bulk of the work would be done in my absence by my partners who would, of course, receive the fees relevant thereto, was arrived at after discussion with those concerned in the Ministry of Defence both before and after the election, with their complete agreement, and indeed, at their request, as being administratively the most convenient method of ensuring continuity in the medical care of this establishment.
In any case, I believe it was the wish of the director of the establishment and the medical department of the Ministry of Defence that I would resume full responsibility for this medical work if I were to cease to be an MP at some future General Election which might riot be all that far away. It was thus thought simpler for me to retain the appointment formally.
At no time during these discussions was any mention made of the question of a disqualifying office. The point was first raised some four weeks later by the Ministry of Defence establishment branch, and, of course, I immediately resigned and informed the authorities of the House. In these circumstances, the House may well feel that any reference to cheating was quite unjustified.
I assure the House that at all times I sincerely believed I was acting in accordance with the rules of the House. I am most grateful to hon. Members for their sympathetic and understanding attitude to my predicament, and to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this statement.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order. Very early this morning I received a letter from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) suggesting that he was going to ask you to instruct me to withdraw remarks that I had made in the short debate that took place on


Wednesday afternoon. He has not in fact read out the statement which I expected him to read, but he has made it clear that he takes exception to the fact that I mentioned that he either broke the law—[An HON. MEMBER: "He did not break the law."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Really, the House has spent enough time on this matter. We must move on to the motion on the Order Paper.

EARLY-DAY MOTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Sittings motion—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Are you not going to rule on my point yesterday, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I said yesterday that I would communicate with the hon. Gentleman if necessary, and I will, if necessary, but not now. The Question is—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had understood that when a point was raised on the Floor of the House and Mr. Speaker had 24 hours in which to rule on it, he did so next day at 3.30. I have not received any communication from you. May I ask that you should rule on it now, as is the normal practice of the House?

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I will rule on it now. I have nothing to add to what I said at the time yesterday.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No, no.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just ruled on the matter. There is no further point of order. The Question is—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order. At no point, Mr. Speaker, have you told me or the House on what grounds the motion which I had handed in to the Table and which was accepted by the Table when I handed it in was refused. You referred to a section of Erskine May, which, incidentally is advisory, not mandatory, and which gives

four different grounds. You did not specify on which ground it had been rejected. It had not been referred to you by the Clerks, so it was not rejected on your direction.
I drew your attention to the section of Erskine May which advises that a motion which is not grossly irregular should be printed, Mr. Speaker, and it is only right that you should rule on what grounds, if any—not a catholic collection of possible grounds that motion was rejected.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is making very heavy weather of this matter. It seemed to me that he accepted yesterday the force of that other passage. However, if he wishes, I will rule upon it, and I will rule upon it tomorrow.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,

That this House do meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

3.41 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 29th April.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to my recent point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why you are not ruling on the matter today? You have just said that you ruled on it yesterday. The long practice of the House is that the Speaker rules 24 hours later, not 48 hours later. If you know the reason for the ruling, Mr. Speaker, why can you not give it now?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is being less than courteous. I said to him that I would communicate with him if necessary. I did not give any undertaking to rule within 24 hours, nor do I believe that it is the custom of the House that a Speaker should so rule. There are many, many cases when points of order are raised and I have said "I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman if necessary", or "I will make a


statement to the House if necessary". This is a matter within the discretion of the Chair. But, as the hon. Gentleman is making such heavy weather of it, I will rule upon it tomorrow.

Mr. Short: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I did not speak now but reserved my remarks until after hon. Members have spoken on the motion.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: It is absolutely imperative that before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the House to make a statement on policy, first in relation to the crisis in beef production, second in relation to the crisis in pig production, and third in relation to the fuel costs which are affecting horticulture.
The action or non-action of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture since he came to office has been extremely detrimental to the industry and has succeeded in destroying confidence in a remarkably short time. Inevitably, the steps that he has taken, and those that he has not taken, will reduce production and, in the longer term, will increase prices to the consumer and will adversely affect our balance of payments.
The urgency is there for all to see. That is why it is vital for the Minister to come to the House now and explain his policy. Two or three weeks in the future will be far too late and will not do. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister comes to the House to make a statement before we adjourn for Easter. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman burying his head in the sand and pretending that there is no problem, because the problem is there and is very real.

Mr. Frank McElhone: The problem was there when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister.

Mr. Monro: The issue is most damaging to the beef industry. Farmers in my constituency—all farmers throughout the United Kingdom—are facing enormous losses over the production of beef. The loss on most fat beasts is £20 to £40 a head at present. This cannot be allowed to continue for one day longer than neces-

sary. In yesterday's edition of the Scotsman a well-known and experienced beef farmer was quoted as losing £9,000 over fattening 200 cattle. There are many such cases. Some producers are worse off than those whom I have mentioned. This is because the Minister has knocked both the bottom and all confidence out of the market. In a very short period he has brought about a situation in which beef producers have neither a guaranteed price nor the assurance of intervention buying. Indeed, in three weeks the Minister has removed both the belt and the braces which were so long required by the National Farmers' Unions.
What money the right hon. Gentleman has put into beef from the calf subsidy has done nothing whatever to help those who have fat cattle to sell now and those who are hoping to sell store cattle in the next few weeks. Farmers are facing EEC costs but with no intervention support at all. The Minister thinks that he obtained a triumph in Brussels, but all farmers think of it as being a raging disaster.
The chaos, disappointment, despair and anger caused by the Minister is universal. He is incredibly short-sighted, and he has betrayed beef producers. The urgency is obvious. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Minister of Agriculture makes a statement before we adjourn for Easter.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: The motion is of some importance, but hon. Members will go away for the next two weeks with some concern about various aspects. The aspect which I want to draw to the attention of the Government and of others is that concerning the future of Concorde.
This is obviously not the occasion on which to debate the merits or otherwise of this very important project, which is itself affected by several aspects of our national life. It is related to employment and the economy, and there is the aspect concerning the use of resources which might be used in other ways, according to what our opinion may be. There is also the aspect of the future of the British aerospace industry.
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to Early-Day Motion No. 57, which has been signed by over 60 of


my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not intend to debate that today. I do not doubt that others will express their concern by supporting the motion. That motion asks the Government to consider the setting up of a Select Committee or a senior ministerial committee to have an impartial look at Concorde and to report to the House by White Paper or by other means.
My anxieties and those of my hon. Friends are that some decisions will be taken before Parliament resumes on 29th April and that the public and those affected will be denied a full and impartial look at the matter.
We recognise several aspects which must be considered by the Cabinet and an impartial committee, and they include the fact that Concorde is a successful aircraft which has met all the technical specifications. It has a broad lead in supersonic air transport over the United States, which decided not to go ahead, and most certainly over the USSR, which had the unfortunate crash of the TU144. We believe that if Concorde is cancelled now we shall lose this lead and that others will take over from us.
Another aspect is the effect of cancellation upon the British aerospace industry. I shall not go too deeply into the various points that I could raise, because they are matters for a future debate. I must declare an interest. I was employed in the aerospace industry in design work for over 20 years. I am a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society and a member of the Council of the Air League. But, in addition to that, I have many colleagues who have a stake in the industry. Also, about 24,000 people are employed directly on Concorde, and another 100,000 are employed in producing accessories and components in various parts of the country. That is a very important factor, and it affects many constituencies.
It has been stated that the cancellation of Concorde would have a major effect upon the employment position and structure of the British Aircraft Corporation's commercial aircraft division and some of the areas involved—Filton, Weybridge and Hurn. In addition, the supplier companies are dotted throughout the country. Those are the consequences of cancellation.
We also recognise the fact that in the last few years the contribution of the aerospace industry to our balance of payments has been considerable. Last year, it is estimated, the aerospace industry earned between £400 million or £500 million in exports. Concorde is the most important project for the industry generally. At a time when the future of the industry is a little uncertain Concorde has a vital rôle to play. Many of my hon. and right hon. Friends are anxious about the subject of defence cuts, but if there are cuts on military aircraft and other military projects the civilian side of the industry assumes even greater importance.
Another factor which a Select Committee or senior ministerial committee could consider is the effect of spin-off. Although Concorde has absorbed £1,000 million or more, there are many instances of other industries benefiting from the spin-off. Take, for example, the aircraft's specially strengthened Triplex glass, which is used in other ways. Another example is the sealing of the aircraft, which has led to better hermetical sealing on equipment for premature babies and on other hospital equipment. Hon. Members can give instances from all over the country of where the techniques, the research, the quality control and other aspects of Concorde's design and manufacture have benefited other industries.
We consider all these aspects to be important and we have a right to expect from my right hon. Friend an assurance that the Government will not take action before 29th April to cancel a project which affects thousands of people.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that many of us hope that at no future time will action be taken to cancel the Concorde project?

Mr. Bishop: I certainly agree with that point of view but I must not press it too far because I am asking for an impartial look at the matter by a Select Committee or senior ministerial committee.
Of course, it may be that those of us who have been connected with Concorde for so long feel that it must continue. As one who has flown in the aircraft I can testify that it is a supreme example of British technology.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hayhoe.

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Bishop: I sat down to give way to the hon. Member for Weston-super Mare (Mr. Wiggin), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wiggin: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). The hon. Member has failed to make one important point. He mentioned the contribution that Concorde could make to the balance of payments through sales of aircraft. He did not mention the even greater contribution that would accrue from the sale of tickets to fly in it when it is operated by British Airways. Is it not a fact that in all the arguments on costings the British Airways' statements are the ones which need closest examination and that the House should find the time to debate them fully in the near future?

Mr. Bishop: I welcome what the hon. Member says. He has helped to drive home the point I was seeking to make. I have flown in Concorde, and I agree with the suggestion that subsonic is substandard. The most important thing is to get the aircraft into service as soon as possible so that other airlines will want to buy it.
I was glad that the Group Managing Director of British Airways said a few days ago that he believed that Concorde would be readily accepted, even enthusiastically accepted, by the travelling public. He suggests that there will be a great deal of enthusiasm for supersonic services. In a broader indication of the expected Concorde economics, he says that break-even factors on both the Atlantic and the African routes will be between 50 and 60 per cent. passenger capacity. Given that external factors do not militate against British Airways, he claims that Concorde's operation could be profitable from its inception. Some may query those comments, but we believe that they need close examination.
To be fair to those who are not so keen on Concorde, there is the point that if more resources are allocated to Con-

corde there will be less available for other things. However, we believe that all these factors, such as the economics of the project, the employment aspect, the need to keep a supersonic lead and the future of the aerospace industry, are matters which should be considered by a Select Committee which can go into them with great care and issue a White Paper or some other report for consideration and debate. We believe that whatever decision is taken many people will expect that. In the meantime I assure my right hon. Friend that over Easter thousands of aircraft workers all over the country will be anxious until the Government announce their decision. I only hope that when the decision is given, whatever that decision may be, the public will say that at least the matter has been examined in a proper and responsible way.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I sat behind my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for, I think, about 20 or 25 hours as his PPS when as Lord President he replied to four previous debates on Adjournment motions. During that time I admired the ingenuity with which hon. Members were able to relate to the Question—whether the House should adjourn for the stated period—matters of great national and constituency importance. From time to time I thought how nice it would be to be in their place and therefore I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to take advantage of the way in which our procedures work to raise a constituency matter. [Interruption.] I have listened to other hon. Members who intervened and sometimes the remarks I have made under my breath from a seated position were even less complimentary than that.
I turn to a constituency point which is extremely relevant to people living on the eastward approaches to Heathrow Airport. I raise this matter particularly in view of an answer given yesterday by the Under-Secretary for Trade on a question of approach roads towards Heathrow. There was talk of a new four-lane high-way breaking through my constituency joining London with Heathrow.
The Under-Secretary's answer will cause great concern to my constituents. Any new road, any widening of existing roads, or any significantly increased flow of traffic over existing roads which have


already done so much damage to the environment of Chiswick, will cause anger, bitterness, shock and resentment among the people living there. I follow my predecessor who represented Chiswick Mr. Michael Barnes, in standing up for the views and feelings of my constituents who have been so badly affected by road developments.
With the hostility the Government now feel towards the Maplin project, and with the fact that consideration now seems to be being given to new road developments between the centre of London and Heathrow, more concern is being added to the already great worry caused by the existence of the M3 motorway, which is pointing like a dagger towards Chiswick and which threatens to project another enormous flow of traffic into a road system which Layfield, when he reported on the Greater London Development Plan, said could not conceivably carry more traffic. The Layfield Report says that the evidence shows that the continuation of the M3 road by means of the A305 and A316 towards the junction with the M4 at Hogarth roundabout would be quite unacceptable in an environmental sense. It adds that the introduction of yet another primary principal road into this area, which is already so severely affected by other roads, would be unsupportable.
The point I am making on behalf of those living in and around Chiswick is that in the reconsideration of the Maplin project, which is being made in accordance with the law of the land, considerable weight should be given to the environmental problems that an extra road would cause. The Under-Secretary of State said yesterday that part of the reconsideration would consist of an examination of the roads that must link Heathrow with the centre of London.
The existing road pattern is bad enough. Many of us are suspicious of the intentions of the Government, the GLC and the borough council towards upgrading the A305 and A316. The imposition of a further road link would make conditions in Chiswick wholly unacceptable.
I do not expect the Lord President to give a clear assurance on these matters today. But I hope that he will be in touch with his right hon. Friends, and

that they will give a clear assurance that the powerful feeling on the matters will be given due weight in all the consideration not only of road developments in the West London area but of a third London airport, which I hope will still be at Maplin. I hope that after consideration that project will be seen to be desirable, because, on the grounds of roads, noise and pollution, my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow want to see it going ahead.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Before we adjourn for the recess my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services should make clear her views on two matters. First, she should make a statement about an early debate on the Lady Sharp Report concerning disabled drivers. I feel strongly about the matter not only from a national point of view but from my constituency point of view, because my constituency contains a whole colony of disabled drivers called Kytes Drive. They are very concerned about the report.
One aspect of the report has caused grave concern. Lady Sharp apparently wishes to give four-wheeled cars to certain categories of disabled persons—namely, those with a family to support and those who have to go to a job—but she will exclude those who are disabled but have no job to go to.
Isolation is a great affliction. If we take cars away from those disabled people who already have them, we shall cause grave discontent and prejudice them gravely. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us when we shall have a debate in which she can explain her view on that grave paragraph in the report.
Secondly, I should like my right hon. Friend to say something about nurses who are jeopardising their health and the health of their patients because they skip their meals or have inadequate meals on account of rocketing hospital canteen prices. Those nurses cannot give the best of themselves to patients if they are hungry.
Mr. Albert Johnson, the secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees at the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, has stated that nurses are not doing a proper job because of their


declining health. The St. Albans area secretary of the National Union of Public Employees, Mr. John Power, has said that all this is a strain on young people and in the long term it is detrimental to the nursing and detrimental to patients.
First-year general student nurses earn only £709. That is going up to £823—a magnificent figure!
I have seen a front-page article in the Evening Echo, the Thomson newspaper for Hemel Hempstead, which gives great prominence to this subject. It says that most student nurses live in hospital lodgings and eat their meals at hospital canteens. They pay 10 per cent. VAT, because the Government consider this eating out. Housewives apparently have telephoned the hospital in sympathy to offer nurses meals. One woman raised enough money to take 20 student nurses out to a hotel. At that free dinner nurses refused to give their names because they stated that they were afraid of victimisation.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very hard on the matter. I asked him before to press her, and he did, but apparently he has not pressed her hard enough. I ask him to press her very hard so that she makes a statement before we rise for the recess.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. David James: I do not wish to break a religious festival by having the House sitting over Easter, but it is appalling that we may have to wait three weeks before we can debate agriculture.
Dorset is almost the typical agricultural county, apart from East Anglia. [Interruption.] My farmers are very unhappy.

Mr. John Biffen: We should put on record the seated comment of the Leader of the Liberal Party that in Dorset they are rich farmers—"barons", I think, was his word.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Those were precisely my words, but the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) obviously did not hear the rest, which was "in comparison with many other areas", where we are comparatively small farmers.

Mr. James: I recall, after that double intervention, that Dorset was once a Liberal seat.
Having had a meeting with my branch of the National Farmers Union last Saturday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—Hon. Members are here to speak up for their constituents. I make no apology for that.
I should like to consider the situation briefly, product by product. Milk production in Dorset is down by 5 per cent. In October 1972 there were 1,801 producers of milk; there are now 1,613. The local view is that by Christmas next year it will be almost impossible to supply the liquid market, let alone the cheese market or anything else which we in Dorset are concerned in supplying.
Beef is probably the trigger point, and anxiety about beef permeates the entire industry. As I understand it, the result of the visit to Brussels of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that the price of Community beef has gone up 12 per cent. The Irish price has gone up 16½ per cent. and the United Kingdom price has gone up 6·3 per cent. That means that Ireland can flood the United Kingdom with cheap beef. The farmers are dissatisfied, and they are in no way mollified by the additional £10 calf subsidy. That is no answer.
I was talking to a farmer friend of mine who is in beef in a large way. He was lured into beef from milk by the previous Government. He sold 80 steers in Sturminster market last week. He received between £25 and £30 a beast less than otherwise would have been the case. His shortfall on his cheque was £2,500, and he still has to meet a vastly increased food bill.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend know that some of my farmers are losing up to £40 a beast when they sell animals in Lancaster and that they are on the point of going to the wall?

Mr. James: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry to hear that her farmers are losing even more than mine. I understand that the loss per beast in my area is between £25 and £30. Perhaps the different climatic conditions in my hon. Friend's constituency result in her farmers losing £40 a beast. My hon.


Friend's intervention strengthens the point which I wish to make. What would hon. Members say if the shortfall of their major cheque for the year was £2,500 and at the same time they had to meet higher prices for their feeding stuffs?
As a result of the current situation in Dorset, the insemination figure for cows is grossly down and the calf killing figure is grossly up. It is estimated that there will be an acute national shortage in 10 months. The farmers of Dorset believe that it is essential, if there is not to be a collapse of the industry within weeks, that certification should be reintroduced and that guarantees should be given. No one can produce at heavy cost against an uncertain market.
With regard to pigs, the Government have announced—

Mr. Ernie Money: rose—

Mr. James: No, I have given way three times and there has been an intervention within an intervention. My hon. Friend must make his own speech when the time comes.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should be pointed out that from their laughter some Government Members apparently think that this serious matter is hilarious.

Mr. James: The Government have announced a subsidy of 50 pence which will reduce throughout the summer to 35 pence and then to 15 pence. I am sorry that some Government hon. Members appear to be laughing at the farmers' plight. The effect of the subsidy will be to reduce the absolute loss to a pig producer from £3·50 per baconer to 50 pence No one can continue producing at that kind of loss. There is further worry that even though the subsidy which I have mentioned was announced three weeks ago it has not started coming through the pipeline.
On Saturday I was talking to a farming constituent who is losing £200 a week. Nobody can be expected to continue trading for very long under thse conditions. As a result of the conditions of which I speak there has been a reduction of the national pig herd by two and a half million pigs. That does not presage well for the housewife in the long term.
The poultry industry wants steady prices. It wonders why the supply management scheme that was laid before the Community in Brussels has been shelved indefinitely. Poultry producers, because they can expand and contract their activities quickly, are suffering from market uncertainties.
I was talking recently to a horticultural under-glass producer. He said that because of the increased cost of fuel the profitability of horticulture under glass has fallen from £3,000-plus an acre to a £3,000 deficit. That is a result of the increases in heating costs. It appears that Dutch horticulturists are heavily subsidised in that they receive subsidies for North Sea gas. That puts our producers at a disadvantage. A further small but relevant point is that VAT on cut flowers hits the early flower trade very hard.
I have dealt with almost every form of agriculture. My conclusion is that because the cost of feeding stuffs has risen and because farmers' receipts have gone down as farmers have far less collateral as they have fewer beasts than 12 months ago, almost all farmers will come under heavy pressure from their banks. Farmers need more money to pay for their feeding stuffs and they now have less collateral. I have spoken to farmers who are paying interest on arrears of interest, which is the most perilous position for any human being to be in.
I am not suggesting that my own party when in office was not culpable. Last October the previous Government made a serious mistake in not recognising the critical situation into which farmers were running. During the next three weeks, while we are in recess, the agricultural industry will run into a serious situation. The country has realised over the past three months that unless it is prepared to pay the price for coal, it will not get coal and it will go cold. An even nastier shock lies around the corner. While farmers would never go on strike, they could reach a position in which it would not be economic to produce. Whether we like it or not, we must pay the price for our food.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be grateful that at least I am not raising any point


about farming or about subsidies. I am sure that farming is an extremely important subject. I am not raising such matters as I happen to be lucky in that I have no farmers in my constituency. Farmers do not normally vote Labour.

Mr. Cormack: They are sensible people.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) has said that farmers do not normally vote Labour. Has he considered how consumers will vote when they find that they have no beef?

Mr. Brown: I probably should not have made any remarks about farmers. I am not going to get involved in an argument about them.
It will be no surprise to my right hon. Friend when I say that I am not habitually an exploiter of the system of taking part in Adjournment debates. I do not criticise any hon. Member for doing so. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I am seeking this opportunity to make one or two brief points following the closure of the Beaverbrook Press in Glasgow. The background to that closure is well known and I shall not go over it.
It seems incredible that so much has happened within three to four weeks. It was on 15th March that the closure announcement was first made. There have been two stages of Government activity since then. The first stage was when negotiations were taking place between the unions and the management about the closure. At that time statements were made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. He made two statements and there was an Adjournment debate. However, the closure took place and a new situation arose.
The action committee of the former employee of the Beaverbrook Press is seeking ways and means of establishing a new newspaper in Scotland. A specific proposition is before the Government at the moment. It is the first that there has been and is modest but significant. It is a request to the Government to consider giving assistance to the action committee in carrying out a feasibility study. I do not think that anyone thinks it an easy matter to start a new newspaper at this

time. Nevertheless those of us who have had contact with the committee believe that there are some possibilities, provided that marketing research is done and that there is financial backing and sound management. All these major elements associated with the problem can only be looked at in some depth if there is a feasibility study in which people are asked to give expert advice on something which is of great concern to about 1,500 employees.
The proposition has been with the Government for over a week now, telegrams have been sent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade yesterday gave a sympathetic response to a request that a representative of his should be present at a meeting being held in Glasgow tomorrow, to which all interested parties, including the Government, have been invited. We regard this as a matter of urgency and of some concern perhaps for the political credibility of the Government on an issue which has aroused great interest and concern in Scotland.
A deadline has been given by the Beaverbrook Press on the possibility of its selling the building, with the plant. That deadline is 19th April, so there is not a great deal of time left in which to carry out a feasibility study and find the necessary backing. Press ownership is a sensitive area—and I mean that in general terms and not on issues like land reclamation. All Governments are scared of seeming to become involved in plans for public control over the Press or even of seeming to give public money to newspapers. It is undoubtedly a sensitive area. But no unreasonable demands are being made in the case of Glasgow—merely a specific request for short-term assistance on a modest level, which must be done before we look at some of the wider issues which may be involved in the future.
It has been announced that one of the wealthiest men in Scotand has joined the Scottish National Party. He owns, or controls companies which own, newspapers in Scotland. Perhaps we should not be reticent or backward, therefore, in trying to argue for something here which would give ordinary people in Scotland a greater say and a better forum


in the media of communications. I hope that the Government will not be frightened off from this modest and reasonable application for help in carrying out a feasibility study simply because of the unfortunate and difficult decisions which may have to be made in future regarding the Press as a whole.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Having lived through the period when the News Chronicle closed down, I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of newspapers, because I want to be brief.
First, I hope that the Leader of the House listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), who was anxious that the House should know the full social and economic cost of Concorde. In his Early-Day Motion the hon. Gentleman asks for the appointment of a Select Committee or a committee of Ministers. I certainly pray that the last thing we have is a Select Committee of Ministers. From Blue Streak to Sea Slug to Concorde, if ever a body of men has got things wrong it is Ministers. If there were a Select Committee of Members of this House, we could at least share the obloquy if the figures were wrong at the end of the day. A Select Committee of this House would be far better than a committee of Ministers.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking us to believe that people are better at taking decisions if they have never been Ministers?

Mr. Thorpe: If we look at the past coldly and clearly, it is clear that Ministers have always been wrong in these matters. We have wasted thousands of millions of pounds on defence projects which have been cancelled since the war, and there is no doubt that if we had had a proper system of committees of this House, as the United States Congress has, the nation would have had better value for money.
Secondly, before we adjourn for Easter we should have a statement from the

Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food tomorrow about the Government's present intentions. I recognise that the farmers did not start to make a loss—such as the £9,000 of a cattle farmer in Scotland that we have heard about—at midnight on 28th February. It was not a sudden transformation. It has been a continuing decline, and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) said so frankly.
First, then, there is the situation in beef production. The Liberal Party has put down a motion on this matter but it cannot be debated before we adjourn. That is no reason, however, why its sense cannot be taken into account in asking the Minister for a statement tomorrow. The fat stock guarantee scheme having been abandoned by the last Government, the Minister, in his EEC negotiations, totally abandoned any intervention price with regard to beef. We thus have the extraordinary situation that the Irish are exporting beef to this country with an export allowance of £2 a hundredweight, perfectly permissible under EEC rules, and are planning to export to Britain beef which will be below our current wholesale price. Therefore, most farmers will incur a loss of anything between £10 and £50 per beast in the market.
Whilst that is going on, there is per contra a levy on our own exports. In the case of lamb sold to France, it is 12·3p per pound, with value added tax added on to it. So we are taking subsidised imports but placing a levy on our agricultural exports. It needs little imagination to realise that this is placing many farmers in a grave situation.
Again, about £3 to £4 a pig is being lost by our farmers, which is equivalent to £30 to £40 per sow and litter. Subsidies will end on lime in July and on fertilisers at the end of May, and this will have an increasing effect on farmers' costs.
During the General Election the last Government brought in something which was relatively unheard of, and certainly unprecedented—a retrospective payment for milk producers, which was one of the most devastating admissions of the underrecoupment which had taken place during the previous year.
This, therefore, is the position of various major commodities in British agriculture, and there is genuine concern in the agricultural community. It is not merely in order that we should maintain a healthy agriculture but in order to ensure that there is not a future food shortage in the country that we expect the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement tomorrow about the Government's intentions.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I believe that the House should not adjourn for Easter until there has been a full-scale and searching inquiry into what I shall be calling the Eastbourne or South Coast scandal.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on the first day of the debate on the Gracious Speech I raised a matter concerning the Duke of Devonshire. I was asked whether it was proper to remark upon him and his activities. I mentioned to Mr. Deputy Speaker that I had been under severe attack in another place from another noble Lord, and that I was taking the opportunity not of putting matters right but of representing my constituents and, for that matter, the constituents of some other hon Members as well.
The Duke of Devonshire, owning as he does large tracts of Derbyshire and most of County Limerick, seems also to be very much in charge of Eastbourne Borough Council. Having mentioned that fact, and coupling with it his application in another place to build a £50 million yachting marina—

Mr. Ian Gow: rose—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of chance to intervene before I am done. I shall be referring to the hon. Gentleman's constituency a great deal during the next quarter of an hour, and what I am now saying is small fry to what I am going to say later. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) ought to prepare himself to make a speech, if he wishes, to defend the Duke of Devonshire, but my guess is that after he hears what I have to say he may be joining those who are exposing the activities not necessarily of the Duke but of the Chatsworth Trustees or Settlement, or trustees working for the settlement, which, to all intents and purposes, in-

volves the Duke of Devonshire to a large degree.

Mr. John Farr: It is as well that we preserve accuracy, and I am sure that the House would wish that the hon. Gentleman should start by being accurate and should, therefore, withdraw the statement that the Duke of Devonshire owns most of County Limerick. To my certain knowledge he does not own more than 3 or 4 per cent. of the county—that is a long way off owning over half of the county—and most of it is bog and water. We should get the facts right.

Mr. Skinner: I concede that the Duke of Devonshire might own only 3 or 4 per cent. of County Limerick, but it is a pretty fair slice; it is slightly bigger than slag heaps in Ince-in-Makerfield, but that does not really matter. However, he is pretty well in charge of the affairs of Eastbourne Borough Council, so far as planning permission is concerned, if the contents of a letter which I have read are true, as suggested by the writer of the letter.
I was saying earlier that it all started as a result of £50 million being spent on a yachting marina. At a time when we are supposed to be in a serious economic crisis, when engineering workers, London teachers and NALGO workers are being told that there is no money in the country, there is £50 million for the Chatsworth Estate Trustees to spend on a yachting marina.
The exposure which I made in the debate on the Queen's Speech, on the first day we got back, received a great deal of coverage, not merely in the national Press, but also in the local Press, particularly around Eastbourne. It was as a result of my remarks being reported in the Press that certain people on the South Coast wrote to me on the matter. The first letter I received was from a man in Eastbourne who was very concerned about the marina itself. He said in his letter:
I am enclosing an extract from the Eastbourne Herald of 16th March referring to a proposed yacht harbour at Langncy Point, Eastbourne. I should like to point out that Sussex River Authority completed, a few months ago, a ramp re-enforcement programme to prevent sea encroachment at a cost of £40,000.


That is what is known as reclaiming land.
This proposal is for a harbour on the landward side of this recently completed work thereby eroding a large area of what could be future land for building purposes.
The writer was there referring to the proposed marina.
Over the past 5 years hundreds of houses have been built on adjacent land of a similar nature. I raised three questions with the local authority, (1) What increase in the present underground level of water would this project have, (2) What provisions for any increase in pollution and its effects, and (3) What impact on the rates locally. I am enclosing the reply.
The reply is from the Town Clerk of Eastbourne, who at the time was Mr. Dartnell. The letter from the resident in Eastbourne goes on:
The initial intention was to build on the sea-ward side a marina and on the land side according to the residential deeds which includes projected planning, an air-strip was contemplated.
I would add that I am surprised that with the scarcity of building land, and where efforts are made in some areas for reclamation, an erosion backed by such a vast amount of money should have almost reached parliamentary approval.
The writer is referring to the fact that a Private Bill is going through the House of Lords at present. It will at some stage reach here unless some of the other things I shall refer to put a stop to all this caper.
The writer sent me the reply from the town clerk which states:
Planning Application … Proposed Harbour on the Crumbles.
I thank you for your letter of the 11th of February which I will report to the Council's Town Planning Committee when they are considering the application. I am asking the Borough Surveyor for his comments on the point you make concerning the underground level of water.
However, I can confirm that this project is entirely private"—
it is private all right.
(it is to be carried out by the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement who have formed the Eastbourne Harbour Company) and no expenditure is being incurred from the rates. It is, of course, appreciated that there will be a considerable added burden on the services which Local Authorities provide in the area, but it is thought that this will be offset by the increase in rates which would accrue from such a development.
The resident also enclosed two newspaper articles referring to the matter, but I will not bore the House with these.
The Duke of Devonshire got out a Press statement in which he said that it was not he personally but the Chatsworth Estates that were responsible, and it was as a result of that that I became more than a little suspicious about what was taking place. I decided that I ought perhaps straight away try to find out what was really concerning some of the people of Eastbourne regarding this matter and as a result of further inquiries I received this most startling letter—

Mr. Jeffery Archer: "Dear Harold".

Mr. Skinner: I say at the outset that I have no association whatsoever with the development company to which I shall refer. When I spoke to the managing director on the telephone this morning I made it abundantly clear that I wanted nothing to do with him. He said that he was a Tory, a disillusioned Tory, and his political views were the exact opposite of mine. He was much concerned about the nationalisation of land proposal which I suggested had gone up another rung on the ladder as a result of recent revelations, and which might go up yet another rung as a result of what I am about to say. When I get to the letter, which hon. Members seem anxious to hear —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have not the advantage of having been here when he began his speech and therefore, as yet, I have not been able to discover why he is making this a point regarding the Adjournment.

Mr. Skinner: The reason why I think it is necessary for me to speak in the Adjournment debate is that I want my right hon. Friend to take full account of what I am about to say—the more juicy bits—and then to see that there is a full-scale departmental inquiry. Perhaps in a way I might be speaking for some other people who are not supposed to be here, up at the other end of the Chamber, so that they can send 26 reporters hurrying and scurrying down to Eastbourne to try to get the full details of the story.
I told the managing director that I would not in any way assist him in any of his developments but that I would


read out the contents of the letter he had sent me. He would then presumably follow that up as a result of the newspaper or departmental inquiries that would obviously ensue.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Gentleman reads the letter may I inquire whether during this debate it is open to any hon. Member to debate any matter or whether they have to refer to certain matters which they would like to debate if the House were not to rise for the Easter Recess?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A wise hon. Member will make sure that his speech refers to the reasons for rising or not rising on the date proposed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is about to come to that point.

Mr. Skinner: I thought you were going to say that I was wise beyond belief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not exactly true. I received this letter on 3rd April 1974. It was from a firm known as Gateway Developments Limited. It reads as follows:
Duke of Devonshire and Marina at Eastbourne."—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but it would help if, either from you or the hon. Gentleman, we could hear what is the relationship between these alleged revelations and the Adjournment debate. If the hon. Gentleman is able to speak in this way within the rules of order may I please go and collect some letters which I would like to read to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can make no promises of that sort. I must say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he must relate his remarks to the debate on the Adjournment, otherwise it is not fair to the House. Other opportunities must be sought if this is a general issue. May I remind the hon. Member that I underline what my colleague the other Deputy Speaker said about references to people in the other place. He has just announced the name of a noble Lord. I hope he will bear in mind what was said earlier.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to mention another duke who sits in another place and suggest that we might have a debate next Wednesday. That is a very good reason why we should not adjourn on Thursday. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to develop that. Why should we not have a debate on the marina at Eastbourne, land reclamation and other developments by Lord Carrington and others next week? That is a very good reason why we should not adjourn.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has put forward a novel idea. I want to get on to the real meat of the matter. I had referred to the heading of this letter:
Duke of Devonshire and Marina at Eastbourne.
This gentleman then goes on to say:
Having been away for three weeks, your remarks in the House as reported in the Daily Telegraph of March 13th and local papers, have only just been brought to my attention.
Your speech seems to have attracted a lot of criticism and suggestions that it was untrue to say that the Duke and the trustees of the Chatsworth Estates had Eastbourne Borough Council in their pocket.
I can give you convincing proof that the Duke does get planning permission in preference to fellow developers, like myself"—[Laughter]—"and that, over the last two years he has received planning permissions worth about £2 million in preference to other developers.
If you are sufficiently interested …".
He then suggested a meeting in which I did not take part. I rang the gentleman. His letter goes on:
I must tell you that well before your justified public criticism, our company had been in touch with Mr. Rippon"—
he is referring to the former Secretary of State for the Environment—
and the Department of the Environment on this very subject.
At a public inquiry held at Eastbourne in January 1973 the inspector, in our opinion, deliberately hushed up our allegations, and after 18-months' wait, our application for"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion before the House, which is the motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if my


hon. Friend wants to quote from a document he should be allowed to read the full document, and is it not the case that that is all my hon. Friend wishes to do?

Mr. James Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be reasonable to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether he has at least given notice to my hon. and right hon. Friends who may be concerned about the accusations he is making?

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be a happy end to all of our deliberations if the hon. Member circulated this in Private Eye rather than attempted to raise the subject now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The House is making a rod for its own back. If the hon. Gentleman relates his argument to the motion for the Adjournment, it will help everyone.

Mr. Skinner: Let me emphasise that this week the topic of discussion in this place, in the Press and the media generally has been land, land and land again. Today I am raising another matter dealing with a subject of a scandalous nature, if this letter is correct—something on a far greater dimension than anything we have discussed in the past few days. Whatever attempts are made in this House to gag me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will make it abundantly plain to everyone what is in this letter. I am using my rights in this place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not attempting to gag the hon. Gentleman. He must seek other opportunities to raise this matter unless he can relate it to the motion for the Adjournment. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman relates this to the Adjournment motion.

Mr. Skinner: I am demanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there shall be a full-scale departmental inquiry into this matter, maybe even a Select Committee, to establish the real facts before the House adjourns. To make the point I have to relate the facts as I have them here. I do not know what the situation is with regard to this development but I

have correspondence which clearly sets it out, and the House, if it had anything at all about it, would want to know what was in this correspondence.

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether the House wants to know what is in the letter which the hon. Member received from this thwarted developer, may I suggest that the House does not want to hear it today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover put himself right when he said that he wanted an inquiry before the House adjourned. Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. David Waddington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity for speaking later.
The letter goes on to say:
At a public inquiry held at Eastbourne"—

Mr. Waddington: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a few moments ago said that during the last few days the House had been discussing land speculation. On a point of accuracy, has not the House been discussing the hypocrisy of Labour politicians?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not help our business to try to use a false point of order to advance an argument. Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: I am rapidly coming to a conclusion. There is an "operation cover-up" taking place on the Opposition side of the House.
The letter continues:
At a public inquiry held at Eastbourne in January 1973 the inspector, in our opinion, deliberately hushed up our allegations,"—
that is, the allegations of the company—
and after 18 months' wait, our application for housing and light industrial permission was refused. This refusal was on land in the same field as land belonging jointly to the Chatsworth Trustees … and Eastbourne Borough Council which had been sold for housing in December 1972.
Our application for warehousing and light industrial permission on this land (at Lottbridge Drove, Eastbourne) was also refused, one of the main excuses being that warehousing did not


employ many people. A few weeks after this refusal, the Duke and the Chatsworth Trustees (whom one must identify as one)"—
those are his words, not mine—
received planning permission for 16 acres of land in Lottbridge Drove for warehousing.
On my writing to the Duke on these matters and accusing him and the Chatsworth Trustees of receiving preferential treatment in the matter of planning permissions whilst standing by and watching other people receive (what were in my opinion) prejudiced refusals, their solicitors, (Curry and Company), threatened to sue me for libel. On my giving them the name of my solicitors to accept service on my behalf they withdrew, saying that they begged to differ with me but that our mutual correspondence should now end.
Re the 16 acres of light industrial (warehousing) land (for which the Duke received planning permission …), the Duke made a speech which was reported in the local papers, in which he said the industrial development in Eastbourne should really be confined to him and the Chatsworth Estates … because his family had developed Eastbourne in the best possible way for many years.
To my astonishment, a few weeks later, I found that this 16 acres was for sale again, and it was sold (I believe to Town and City Properties)"—
which is now in the process of a reverse takeover by Sterling Guarantee Trust Limited—
for about £50,000 an acre.
Our companies were therefore left in the position of having no release on our housing land, and no release on our light industrial land, while the Duke had the lot.
That is the letter I received from Gateway Developments Limited, signed by the Managing Director, A. H. Mendelson, whom I telephoned this morning to confirm the contents of the letter. I have also telephoned his solicitors, to whom he referred in the letter, and they have confirmed everything that he reported to me. Mr. Mendelson said that he had been trying to get the matter raised with the Department of the Environment and the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and that this affair made the Poulson affair look like a Boy Scouts' jamboree.
That is the background, and those are the facts as they have been reported to me. I call upon my right hon. Friend to set up an inquiry, the biggest that can be mounted. I suggest to the media that they have a national and public duty to get down to Eastbourne with all their paraphernalia as quickly as possible. If

the Press is as impartial as it has suggested during the past week, it has a public duty to sort out exactly what has taken place in Eastbourne, how many people are involved in this scandal, whether local authority officials and councillors are involved and to what extent the Chatsworth Trustees and the Duke of Devonshire are involved. All these questions need a public answer, and that answer must be given with the greatest possible speed.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will allow me to change the subject—which may be a relief to some hon. Members.
The House should not adjourn for the Easter Recess until it has considered the dispute between Government scientists and the Civil Service Department. I have raised this subject on several occasions. Today the Pay Board has made a report, and I wish to speak only briefly to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the position.
For some time scientists in the Civil Service have been frustrated and angry, and much concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about this. Paragraph 19 of the Pay Board's report contains important information on the widening discrepancy between the administrative grades and the scientists in the Civil Service. In 1971 a Principal Scientific Officer was at parity with the administrative grades. He is £880 per annum behind the administrative grades, as at 1st January 1974 when the stage 3 increase was introduced. The Higher Scientific Officer is now £731 behind the administrative grades.
I am sure that the Leader of the House and the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, whom I am glad to see in his place, are aware of the seriousness of this matter.
The formula suggested in the Pay Board's report is rather obscure. It suggests a return to internal relativities and also suggests that the salary of the Principal Scientific Officer should not differ by more than 5 per cent. from the salary of the principal grade. It will take a long time to implement the Pay Board's report and there is need for an immediate increase here to make up the discrepancy.
The dispute has been going on since 1971. I am not suggesting that that is the fault of the present Government. I have spoken many times about it, in both the last Parliament and this Parliament. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment, and he would, I believe, be prepared to discuss the matter with the scientists and the Civil Service Department. Consent machinery is available under stage 3. Should not this be implemented as quickly as possible, because otherwise the Pay Board's report will take months to implement?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of criticising the Conservative Government on the same grounds. I therefore ask in a gentle spirit: what is being asked for by the hon. Gentleman that is different from my hon. Friend's reaction to me this afternoon on the Pay Board report?

Mr. Neave: As I have not seen the answer to the question I am unable to reply to that. Had I done so, I should have tried to advance some constructive suggestion.
I should like to see the Civil Service Department and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants get together round the table, possibly with the Secretary of State for Employment intervening. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will take note of my remarks before the House adjourns for Easter.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a new Member, may I seek your guidance? Is it the custom of the House that when an hon. Member seeks to raise a matter which relates specifically to the constituency of another hon. Member, he should give notice of his intention to the hon. Member whose constituency is referred to?
Secondly, is it the custom of the House that when an attack is to be made on a Member of another place notice is given to that Member of another place? Thirdly, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was directly criticised a few moments ago, is it not the custom of the House that notice should have been given to him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Three questions have been asked of me. The answer to the first is that it is a matter of courtesy, but it is not contained in any Standing Order, whether hon. Members send notes to each other that they are about to raise matters concerning each other's constituency. Secondly, I heard no attack on a noble Lord in another place. If I had heard anything which I thought to be a personal attack, I would have pulled up the hon. Gentleman concerned. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was referring to the Chatsworth trustees—

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only being faithfully fair to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when I say that he accentuated that in his view the Chatsworth trustees and the Duke of Devonshire were one and the same.

Mr. William Hamilton: Quite right—they are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point of order put to me related to whether there had been a personal attack on the noble Lord. I interpreted it as criticism of the trustees, and I do not know who the trustees are.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I appreciate that in this debate an hon. Member is not allowed to argue the merits of a case but must adduce reasons for saying that the House should not adjourn. I should like to put forward two reasons. First, if we were to adjourn I should not have the opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to the office which you now hold. Since we have been compatriots for 30 years, I have great pleasure in offering my congratulations to you.
I know that an hon. Member must never bring the Chair into debates, and I shall not attempt to do so. If I were to do so, I can say with confidence that the subject that I wish to bring to the notice of the House would have the approval of the present occupant of the Chair. I know that I must not bring the Chair into debates, but I know that I can call in aid my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House since in the past he has been an hon. Member of the honourable profession which I now wish to mention. I refer to the teaching profession.
I do not want the House to adjourn for such a long period of time while we have before us the grave and serious situation in London with regard to the teaching profession. If we were to adjourn, I should not have the opportunity of reminding my right hon. Friend and the Government that—although I appreciate that it is not the Government's fault and that they have no responsibility for the present shocking situation—a state of affairs has been allowed to grow up which has been accentuated by the dilatoriness and maladministration of the Conservative administration. However, since a Labour Government have taken the reins of office, they have been left to hold the baby.
It must be emphasised that in London that "baby" is in a very serious condition. In my constituency of the London Borough of Newham, every day of the week 900 children are unable to obtain full-time schooling. This breaks the terms of the Education Act, and therefore the Government are responsible for breaking it. Furthermore, in my area there is a shortfall amounting to a total of 63 teachers, and a large number of children have to be "bussed out" to neighbouring areas.
It would have been extremely helpful in this debate to have had present in the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. Friend must know all about this serious situation, although I do not blame him because the Labour Government in the last three or four weeks have done a wonderful job. I do not expect them in that short time to right all the wrongs and troubles created by the Conservative Government in their three years of office.
It must be said—and again I am not going into the rights and wrongs of the matter—that the Conservative Government allowed a number of Ugandan Asians to come to this country and that that policy had the support of all parties in the House. However, the Conservative Government did not take adequate precautions to see that those people were evenly spread throughout the country. That Government issued a pious appeal asking those people not to go to red areas. That was obviously a stupid comment to make because those poor devils

obviously went to areas where they had friends and relatives. They went to areas such as Newham, Southall and Leicester —areas where their relatives were living. This made a serious situation much worse and it has led to many children being put in a position where they are not receiving full-time education.
There are many reasons for the present situation, although in this short debate I wish only to touch upon the question of the London weighting allowance. I wish my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bear one important matter in mind. The Labour Government are against phase 3 and also against the Conservative Government's prices and incomes policy, but the Labour Government are now actively carrying out a policy in which they do not believe. We are told that they can do nothing about the London weighting allowance because they are waiting for the report of the Pay Board—a report that is not due until June. I am not concerned with what the Pay Board may or may not be considering. Those well-paid gentlemen on the board may take a long time to come to a decision, but I do not think the Government should worry about that decision. The Government do not need to wait until June for a report from a board which they do not support and in which they have no confidence.
The matter which I am raising has far wider effects than the situation affecting the teaching profession and school children, bad as that situation now is. We now face a situation where the whole of London government could come to a standstill. At this very moment town halls are virtually shutting up shop. It is almost impossible to telephone some town halls after five o'clock in the afternoon, and this is a very serious matter.
If one of my constituents who is an old-age pensioner or a disabled person requires some urgent attention, what am I to do? I cannot get the advice of a Minister because Parliament is in recess, and I cannot get hold of any officials in the town hall because the local government officers are not working. I do not blame those officers. Why should they be treated in this way? Other people can obtain what incomes they like, with no restrictions and no holds barred. The Leader of the House knows that I gave


to the Conservative Prime Minister hundreds of examples involving company directors who, year in and year out, doubled and trebled their salaries in contravention of phases 1, 2 and 3 However, the then Conservative Prime Minister deliberately refused to do anything to remedy that situation, and that applied to all his Ministers.
I am now seriously considering refusing to vote on any matter at all in this House until something is done about the situation. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to laugh, but this is no laughing matter. The hon. Gentleman may have been lucky enough to have had a good education, and probably his children are receiving a good education too. No doubt he has the money to provide that education, and he may well have cause to laugh. However, I do not regard it as a laughing matter that children are being deprived of educational opportunities.
I expect to hear sneers and jeers from well-paid Tories, but I am trying to raise the plight of ordinary working-class children—some of them immigrants—in my constituency who are just not being given the opportunities they deserve. I am seriously contemplating telling my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Labour Chief Whip that I shall refuse to cast my vote on any matter until this situation is put right. It can be put right.
That brings me to my next point. We do not know what is happening about mortgages. We are getting Press statements and leaks. We are hearing suggestions and hints that the Government may lend hundreds of millions of pounds to the building societies in order to enable them to grant mortgages to would-be house purchasers. Unless we have a chance to debate this, we shall not know the truth. I am not saying whether the proposal is good or bad. I should prefer the Government to release some of the assets which the building societies have to keep in liquid reserves and to allow the societies to use that money for mortgage purposes. But if the Government can lend hundreds of millions of pounds to the building societies, why cannot they give a few million pounds to my school teachers and enable them to take jobs

in Newham rather than go for the better jobs in areas such as Bournemouth, Boscombe, Bath, Eastbourne and such places?
We are suffering in a number of ways. Our teachers have classes of 60 and 70 children. They have immigrant children, and they have to learn four or five languages. Their classes are overcrowded. They cannot get houses. As a result, they will not take the jobs. I suggest that if the Government can lend this money to building societies, they can make some available to areas which are now hard pressed because of the low level of the London weighting allowance.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: There are one or two other matters which need emphasis. One of them is that our Labour colleagues on the GLC are equally worried about the situation. As for the present shortage of teachers, that assumes a greater dimension than just the rewards to teachers. There is acute parental concern, and all that is needed is an interim monetary arrangement to create a sweeter atmosphere.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend has stolen my thunder. I hope that his local paper picks up his intervention because he has campaigned about this for a long time. He ought to get the credit locally that he deserves. Not only does the GLC support my hon. Friend. Every local authority in London wants to pay the money.
I cannot understand why this Government should do the dirty work of the former administration, whose policy was disowned by the electorate. This Government appear to be carrying out that despicable policy of the former Government which is the cause of the present situation.
As I said just now, I am seriously considering refusing to give my vote to the Government on any Division in this House. What is more, I am contemplating starting a campaign among all London Members urging them to withhold their votes from the Government until something is done to put right this serious wrong.

Mr. Christopher Price: This situation becomes even more serious when one remembers that it is in the week after Easter that the Inner London Education Authority and the outer


London boroughs will begin to recruit new teachers from colleges. No young teacher leaving college can be expected to teach in London without some certainty about the London allowance, which we are not being given at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: I think that my hon. Friend has put the position very clearly. He was a teacher and he can probably deal with this matter much better than I can. I hope that others of my hon. Friends will take up the point.
There is another matter which we shall not be able to debate if we adjourn on Thursday. Today on the one o'clock news I heard a disgraceful announcement. I anticipate the laughter which I know will come from the Opposition benches. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite can laugh because the news item to which I refer means nothing to them. I heard that tomatoes brought into Covent Garden were being sold in the market for 50p a pound. It was said that lettuces were only—only—l5p. The commentator said that the price of salad stuff was being forced up deliberately, and it was boasted that prices were always increased at weekends, especially just before Easter.
This is a situation which should not be allowed to continue. I shall not deal with it in detail now. I hope to raise it later in the day when we consider another item on the Order Paper. However, I ask the Leader of the House to watch the situation carefully. I do not intend to allow our Government to carry on as the previous administration did, making excuses for a continuing situation of this kind.
Earlier in my remarks I made a brief reference to mortgages. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House what is to happen about mortgages. Will there be an announcement? Do the Government intend to lend money to the building societies? I hope that, rather than making loans or granting capital to the societies, my right hon. Friends will temporarily amend the Building Societies Act which says that societies must keep so much of their assets liquid. Let us have a system whereby for a period the banks underwrite the liquidity of the building societies and let the societies use some of their £2,000 million of reserve for mortgage purposes. I do not see why that cannot be done to help overcome the present mortgage difficulty.
Another matter that we shall be unable to discuss if we adjourn for such a lengthy period concerns the serious situation which will develop in coming weeks in the engineering industry. I do not intend to go into details or to touch upon the sub judice issue. But I am amazed how we in this House, where almost every other Member is a lawyer, continue to tolerate a legal process in which it can take months and even years to bring cases before the courts but where, if a matter arises which affects workers in trade unions, cases can be dealt with speedily resulting in the most vicious fines and penalties. In such cases, action can be taken almost overnight, but in cases involving criminal offences no one seems to worry. What is more, I can quote cases where criminals have been fined and have refused to pay their fines. No action has been taken. But if a trade union is involved, the full penalty of the law is imposed immediately and viciously and in many cases in a biased manner.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be very careful. If the Government propose to carry out the former Tory Government's policy of viciousness and vindictiveness towards the trade union movement, they will be heading for trouble.
I know that I must not attack our judges, but it is strange how many of them are Tories and former Tory candidates. It is equally strange how many of them seem to be biased against the trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Smear".] I am not attacking any individual judge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Smear".] Generally it is true, and I know that it is true. I can produce evidence, although I know that. I am not allowed to produce that evidence—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis has been keeping the rest of his argument to his reasons why he feels that we should not adjourn on Thursday. If he will relate this point to his argument to the same question I shall be grateful.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if it were not intended to adjourn on Thursday or if it were proposed to return earlier, I could have responded to the shouts of Opposition Members and given chapter and verse of where there is this bias. However, I


have made my point. Everyone knows the facts of the situation.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is a more general one, and it will not be possible to deal with it in detail if we adjourn on Thursday. It concerns the lackadaisical attitude of Government Departments. In saying this, I am not smearing any individual. I am attacking the departmental administration. In doing so I must pick out the civil servants concerned. However, I appreciate that it is Ministers who are ultimately responsible. Therefore, I blame Ministers, particularly former Ministers.
I have three years' evidence on this matter, as have my hon. Friends. Having written to a Department, I found that it takes a week or 10 days to be told that the letter has been received. It takes another week or 10 days to say that the letter is receiving consideration and it is hoped to send a reply. Then, if one is lucky, after three or four weeks one gets a reply which is invariably that which one knew when first writing.
It is about time that we got Ministers to reply to letters written and matters raised by Members of Parliament with reasonable speed. If Members of Parliament, who are supposed to get priority, are treated in this manner, I wonder what happens to the ordinary member of the public. The ordinary taxpayer pays our salaries, including the salaries of Ministers and civil servants. It is disgraceful that one should have to wait as long as 12 weeks for a reply. It made no difference when I used to ask the former Prime Minister every week to deal with the matter. I got no satisfaction at all. He refused to get his Ministers to act.
This leads me to a point which I cannot make next week unless I oppose the motion.

Mr. Prior: Has the hon. Gentleman ever had any satisfaction from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Mr. Lewis: I am just coming to that. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised that matter. I will deal with this point right away. I asked a previous Minister for the cost of the switch-on campaign during the election. Unless I can get the recess postponed for a week

I shall not be able to raise this issue. I suggest that we should postpone the recess or perhaps come back a week early. If we come back a week early I shall be able to raise this issue. The issue to which I refer concerns being given false information by a Minister. Whether it was a previous Minister I am not sure.
However, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) knows me well enough to appreciate that I do not care which Minister or party is in office. I go on the principle of the issue. I asked for the cost of the switch-on campaign. It was kept back. But on polling day I received a letter from the previous Minister saying that the cost was £750,000. The present Minister has informed me that the cost was £2 million.
The point is that for about five weeks I have been pestering Ministers to give me the facts. I think that five weeks is too long to be kept waiting to ascertain whether it was a previous Minister or the present Minister who misled me.
If the House goes into recess on Thursday, I shall not be able to raise matters in the House and I shall not be able to have matters dealt with by telephoning Departments. One just does not get any satisfaction. Three or four weeks ago I telephoned the Home Secretary's private secretary and asked him to advise the Home Secretary about certain matters that I wanted to raise on the Floor of the House. If I phone that same person tomorrow and say that I want to raise a particular issue on the Floor of the House next week, I shall not be able to raise it. We are being deprived of time during which we could raise important issues concerning maladministration and neglect on the part of civil servants.
It is the duty of the Leader of the House to look after the interests of Members, irrespective of their parties. I suggest that he must ensure that Departments do the jobs for which some of the staff are extremely well paid.
I assure the right hon. Member for Lowestoft that I certainly shall see and write to the present Prime Minister, that I shall raise questions on the Floor of the House and that I shall attack the Ministers concerned—I hope it will not be necessary—if they take 12 weeks to inform me that a letter needs a postage


stamp. These are the kind of matters which should be dealt with quickly. Simple replies could and should be sent within a few days. Unless there is some improvement in this situation I shall try to create a stir on the Floor of the House.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I trust that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. Clearly, time is getting short.
I want to return briefly to a subject raised earlier by a number of my hon. Friends—the agriculture industry. Before doing so, I should declare my interest in it.
There is a strong feeling of worry and uncertainty running through the industry. It is true of beef producers, of pig producers and of milk producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) referred to the fall in milk production in Dorset, but that fall is not limited to that county alone; it is nationwide. So bad is the fall that for the first time in post-war history, I imagine, there is a real danger and possibility that there will be a shortage of liquid milk supply by next Christmas.
My hon. Friend also referred to cheap beef flooding into the home market from Ireland. A look by any beef producer at the situation today in Ireland will reduce the British producer's confidence still further. Earlier today I was told that in Ireland last week no fewer than 50 per cent. of the cattle slaughtered were put into intervention. Yet in this country there is no intervention. What effect will that have when it is known amongst home beef producers?
On 25th March, following his statement on the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in reply to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), said amongst other things:
I am satisfied that this award and the proposals which I have put forward will give confidence in parts of the industry where there was some neglect.
I do not accept that there was neglect. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman clearly appreciated the need for confidence. Indeed, he emphasised this point

again in reply to a question that I asked when he said:
I believe that the industry needed confidence by the injection of a direct subsidy. I have done that with calf subsidy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March 1974; Vol. 871, cc. 42–45.]
Both those points clearly show that the right hon. Gentleman realises the need for confidence within the agriculture industry if it is to maintain its current rate of production, let alone to expand it. I should point out that the industry is maintaining its current rate of production only because of the encouragement given to it in the three and a half years of the Conservative Government. The fact is that, despite the Minister's desire to instil confidence, he has not succeeded.
Only a few days after that statement the leading article in Farmers Weekly of 29th March, under the heading,
Farming loses in Peart's roulette",
began: "Minister of Food"—Minister of Food, not Minister of Agriculture—
Minister of Food Mr. Fred Peart dealt farming a foul blow at the Common Market price review when he ripped market support from under the feet of beef producers.
A few days after that the President of the NFU sent a long telegram to the Prime Minister expressing the serious state of the agriculture industry, and among other things he said:
Confidence throughout the whole agricultural industry is now at its lowest ebb for many years.

Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is fair-minded, and I have listened to him over the years. I hope he will think that I, too, am fair-minded. It may be because of their way of life and their constant battle with the elements, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that farmers sometimes tend to look on the pessimistic and gloomy side of life? Can he tell me any Government in which the farmers have had confidence? Is it not contrary to all philosophy and to what one might term attitudes to life that farmers often have more confidence in a Labour Government than in a Conservative one?

Mr. Morrison: I do not for a moment accept the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, I agree that farmers tend to grumble. Because of that, when they are really in difficulty as they are now, their problems are not


heeded to the extent that they should be. The fact is that the situation is extremely serious. We are concerned not just with the confidence factor in the industry but with, ultimately, the effect of a lack of confidence on the production and supply of home-produced food. If there is no confidence, there will soon be an increasing shortage of supplies. I am convinced that if the Minister does not make a statement—about beef in particular, but also about some of the other aspects of agriculture—before the recess confidence will deteriorate still further, and that could have an increasingly adverse effect on production trends.
I said earlier, emphasising what had been said by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), that there is now no beef guarantee and no intervention. It is all very well for the Government to think short term and to rejoice in the possibility of lower beef prices to the consumer, but what possible good will short-term thinking do if, before a year or 18 months are up, there is a vast increase in the price of home-produced food and a shortage of supplies? I hope that the Leader of the House will express strongly to the Minister of Agriculture the need for a statement before the recess.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: Turning from farming to industry, I rise to oppose the Adjournment of the House for the recess on the ground that we should not go away until at least inquiries have been started and a statement has been made into the problem of Japanese penetration into the ball and roller bearing industry of this country.
When I raised this matter at Question Time on 25th March, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry confirmed that the NSK Company of Japan is to build a factory in the North-East of England for the manufacture of ball bearings. As one who represents a northeastern constituency and has constantly pressed for the provision of employment in the North-East I am not for a moment opposing the provision of jobs in that region, but I make the point that the jobs would be very much better provided by British rather than by Japanese industry.
The indications are that this could be the start of a process that could have grave implications and threaten the provision of jobs not only in the ball bearing industry in the North-East but in the country generally. On 25th March the Minister of State for Industry said in answer to my supplementary question about this factory that there was no question of competition with British industry and especially with the Ransome Hoffman Pollard plant at Annfield Plain in my constituency. I have to put it to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that that is not accepted by my constituents and that in that works, which are of crucial importance as they employ nearly 2,000 people, there is great concern about the future of this Japanese development not very far away.
I am to visit the works at Annfield Plain on 26th April to meet trade unionists and the management to discuss this matter, and I must have something to tell them. That reinforces my case that there must he at least an interim statement in the House before that date. I therefore oppose the motion to adjourn the House for the recess until such time as that statement has been made.
The development that is taking place in the North-East is following the classic pattern by which the Japanese penetrate the industries of other countries, and perhaps I may make three short points to substantiate that.
First, there is in Japan a highly protected home market, and it would not be possible, for instance, to build a British-owned factory there. Secondly, it has been the practice of the Japanese to select a particular line in the market in a country and flood that market with products at below the market price. That has happened in the ball bearing industry in this country.
Thirdly, the pattern is extended with the establishment of a Japanese-owned works with the object of providing a base from which expansion can take place to undermine and even destroy the native-owned industry. That has happened even in the mighty United States of America, where the great electronics industry of that country has passed out of the ownership of American hands. That is the threat that is presented to the ball and


roller bearing industry. The development has reached its present stage as a consequence of the previous Government's folly in encouraging this type of Japanese development within Britain.
I understand that the present Government have come to some sort of an agreement—I presume with the Japanese company, but it may be with the Japanese Government—about certain conditions to be followed. I put it to the House that we should not adjourn until the terms of that secret agreement, whatever it is, are made public so that their value can be assessed by those whose jobs are threatened in my constituency and in the country generally. I must press my right hon. Friend to accept my view that a searching inquiry must be started and that a statement must be made about what proposals are in hand. Are the proposals in this agreement satisfactory? If not, what is proposed to contain this threat to a vital section of British industry?

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I have no sizzling letters to read, and no great problems that must be exposed. I want to bring to the attention of the House some of the important and real difficulties being experienced by some rural areas. We need a debate and a statement on rural affairs. In particular, we need a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Since taking office, the Government have taken certain steps that have caused considerable hardship in the rural areas. I do not think that the House should lightly dismiss the problems of these areas. Our numbers may not be large, but collectively we play an important part in this country's affairs.
The imposition of VAT on petrol has created an additional burden in country areas, particularly for those who must go to the towns to work. I should like to quote not a sizzling letter but just an ordinary constituent putting the problem to me and, therefore, to the House:
It is not easy to find work in this part of the world and one cannot pick and choose as one can, for instance, in London and the other big cities. On top of this, and maybe because of this, one is forced to accept wages greatly inferior to those obtainable in the rest of the country.

She says that the imposition of VAT on petrol has caused someone like herself considerable hardship.
The second problem is the increase in rates. It would be completely dishonest to say that there would have been no increase under a Tory administration, but the unfairness of their application causes people in rural areas great annoyance. This same constituent says:
As far as the incredible increase in rates is concerned … it seems grossly unfair that people who enjoy none of the amenities of their more urban counterparts and who have to exist on very much smaller wages, should again be penalised.
Talking of the small village in which she lives, she says:
… there is no public transport, no shops, no street lighting, no pavements and only very badly kept roads—I also have no main drainage. It seems that we are being asked to subsidise these luxuries for our towrr-dwelling fellow-countrymen.
This should not be dismissed as a complaint from one odd person; it is a real problem in rural areas.
Strange though it may seem, the announcement of a 30 per cent. increase in the cost of electricity will have a far more unpleasant effect in rural areas. Many of our small towns and villages in the South-West have no gas at all. Gas is not to be increased in price. Because these people rely solely on electricity they will have to pay much more for their power.
All this adds up to an increase in the rural cost of living which although it may be small to some people, especially those who can demand corresponding wage increases, to others makes all the difference between managing and not managing.
A far more serious blow to the rural areas under the present Government is the persisting doubt over the Common Market agricultural policy. One can argue about the merits or demerits of a deficiency payments system or of an intervention arrangement, but the present Minister of Agriculture has caused agriculture a great deal of uncertainty about the future. In a Written Answer last Friday, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not accept that we should bring back a deficiency payments scheme or that we should bring in an intervention system. So farmers


are left with no underpinning. A clear statement before Easter is needed.
Beef is a long-term product. It takes two-and-a-half years to produce a bullock. One can build 10 miles of motorway in less time. Beef production needs confidence; the required quantities will not be produced unless this confidence is given back and farmers get a fair return. Hon. Members opposite may say "Beef is too dear", but the facts of life are that farmers get roughly £18·50 a hundredweight while the costs of production are at least £21. The extra £10 that the Minister has given on the calf subsidy is not the answer.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: It is given at the wrong end.

Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend is quite right—it is at the wrong end.
The Minister needs to think again and state clearly his agricultural policy. Are we going back to deficiency payments, or, as I would like, will he honour the agreement over agriculture that the previous Government made with the EEC? At the moment, the Government have broken the transitional period arrangements, and confidence in beef production has gone.
There is no halfway house. Must the farmers have a further transitional period while the present Government make up their minds whether to accept the Community policy on agriculture, as we on this side have accepted it, or to revert to deficiency payments?

Mr. Peter Snape: I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member, but is it now Conservative policy completely to accept the common agricultural policy? If so, since utter acceptance implies the amassing of a beef mountain to go with the butter mountain, why did the Conservative manifesto at the last election make no mention of the Common Market, let alone the CAP?

Mr. Mills: With great respect, and without wishing to be too harsh to a new Member, the hon. Gentleman has clearly shown how little he knows about agricultural policy in the Community. I am saying that we accepted the transitional arrangements. Certainly there is a need for a change in Community policy, but

what we oppose is this vacuum in which the present Government are doing nothing.
Agriculture at the moment faces Community costs, and it needs a fair return to cover them. Agriculture is prepared to keep its bargain. The Minister should make a statement so that the agricultural community know what he will do. If he leaves it in a vacuum, the farmers will certainly suffer, but the consumers—the Labour Party gives the impression that it is interested only in the consumers—will suffer far more. We are interested in both farmer and consumer. There must be a proper balance and a fair price must be paid. It is important to see that the consumer has the material and the production that is needed to feed the nation. There may be some shortterm benefits in what the Minister is doing, but in the long term it will be disastrous for the consumer.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooky: The House has covered a great many topics in the past hour or two. The topic to which I refer, and about which I suggest that the House should not adjourn before some assurances from the Government of action on it, concerns the life and death of 7 million human beings. I refer to the terrible drought which is still raging in the Sahel region of West Africa. I should like some assurances that everything possible is being done by the United Kingdom Government to expedite the dispatch of the food, medicine and transport which will be absolutely essential in the next few weeks if thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of these people are not to starve to death or to die of disease.
I expect that some hon. Members will have seen the very moving television documentary which dealt with the starvation and famine in Ethiopia; but the situation to which I am referring affects not only Ethiopia but six other countries in Africa—Gambia Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad. They have—or had—a total population of about 7 million.
The problem is one of grave urgency and has been highlighted once again by serious reports in responsible newspapers in this country from men who are in the towns and villages where women and


children are dying for lack of food and dying of disease. It is a problem of money, of food and of medicine, but, above all, it is is a problem of transport.
Towards the end of last year the United Nations, through the Secretary-General and other senior officials, made special appeals to the countries of Western Europe to take urgent action, by the supply of money and food, to help to alleviate this disaster, which is now moving into its eighth year. There have been eight successive years of drought in the South Sahara region of Africa. It is one of the major natural catastrophes of this century and has been described in the grimmest terms by the Under-Secretary General of the United Nations.
Unfortunately, although contributions were made by West European countries, including, I am glad to say, the United Kingdom, the requests for money, food and particularly the transport and logistics support for getting food and medicine to those who need them were not fully met. The United Nations appeal was not met to the extent which the United Nations officials have regarded as reasonable and necessary.
It has been reported that officials of the Common Market and of the United States made proposals as long ago as August 1973 with a view to bringing effective action, or some action, to bear on this tragic situation, but that their proposals were not acted upon by the Council of Ministers of the Common Market until about 10 days ago. In addition, there appears to be some evidence that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has made serious miscalculations about the amount of food required—no doubt in good faith, and possibly based on inadequate information from the countries which need this help. This compounds the difficulty of the present situation and underlines the urgency for the British Government, obviously in concert with other Governments, to do their utmost to supply food and to supply the transport which will be needed to get it to its destination.
One of the particular difficulties of this situation is that there is a period of a few weeks in which road transport which can convey this food will be able to get to the more inaccessible parts of the

Sahara where the food is most needed, but that within a certain period there will be rain in various regions which will prevent access. It will prevent the trucks from getting there. We shall then have to rely on a much less effective and much more expensive air-lift. Even if the aircraft can be found or if they are provided by North America and Western Europe, an air-lift is neither as effective nor as efficient as road transport. It is of the greatest urgency that the countries of Western Europe should make every endeavour within the next few weeks to see that trucks and transport are made available to carry food to the 7 million people who face famine and starvation.
I make only one suggestion in this respect. I am quite sure that the countries which make up the NATO alliance have available within their armed forces thousands of vehicles from which surely a few hundred could be spared to be sent on a humanitarian mission of this kind. I cannot conceive that it would in any way impair the effectiveness of the Western alliance if for a short spell of a few weeks military transport, whether from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the United States or Sweden, was diverted to the humanitarian job of carrying food and medicine to thousands of people who are starving or dying of disease.
I make only that one point. It may well be that our Ministers can consider other means of bringing effective aid to bear in this tragic situation. But I consider that the House should not adjourn until some statement has been made by the Government as to what steps will be taken by them, in concert with friends and allied countries in Western Europe and North America, to bring help to people who are quite literally facing death by starvation.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I shall not follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), although the whole House will have listened to what he said with great sympathy and support.
I also oppose the motion that the House should adjourn for the Easter Recess, but not on the grounds which have been most commonly advanced from the Opposition—although, if a


Member representing an urban constituency may be allowed to say so, the points that have been made about agricultural policy advance a very strong case indeed. It is a question of which all hon. Members, irrespective of party or of the kind of constituency that they represent, should take serious note.
The House should not adjourn for Easter until we have had a debate or at least a Government statement on the increasing threat of terrorism in this country. We saw at the weekend the latest example of this threat in the explosions which occurred in London, Birmingham, and Manchester. Those attacks, together with the attacks which have occurred over the last few months, should be debated in the House as a matter of urgency.
We have become accustomed to the activities of terrorists and urban guerrillas abroad. We have seen them operating in the Middle East and in Europe—the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, for example—and we have seen their activities and the destruction they cause in the United Kingdom, notably in Northern Ireland. However, there has now been an extension of these tactics and this kind of threat in Britain. The explosions at the weekend were coordinated attacks in London, Birmingham and Manchester. In other words, the threat can now be fairly said to be nation-wide.
It follows that the Government must have, and must announce, a policy to tackle the threat. The evidence that the intensity and strength of these attacks are increasing makes it all the more urgent for the Government to make a statement. Take Birmingham as an example. Unfortunately, the weekend attacks were not the first in that city. There were incidents last August, but in many ways the latest were the worst that have been experienced. The bombs on this occasion were three times the size of those used before. They were placed at strategic points in the city centre and they were designed to do the maximum damage and to present the maximum danger to life. It is remarkable that there were no injuries, and the credit for that must go entirely to the police in Birmingham and to the bomb disposal unit.
A clear threat has developed which this House must take note of. In itself, the existence of this threat is reason enough for an urgent debate, but behind it is the question of the policy to tackle the situation, and that, too, justifies having a debate. It is a threat which must be countered. We are entitled to ask the Government for their policy in dealing with it. It will not disappear. The day of the terrorist, the day of the urban guerrilla, is with us, and the Government must have policies to tackle that threat.
A statement of Government policy must include three essentials. First, the Government must make it clear that they will not be moved, that they will not be persuaded to change their policy in any way by these tactics. It is fatal in attempting to counter terrorists and urban guerrillas to give way or to open up the prospect of a change of policy. I do not suggest for one moment that the Government intend to do so, but they must make that absolutely clear and beyond all doubt.
The Government must examine as a matter of urgency the police policies in this area. It has been demonstrated that we are dealing with a national problem. It affects the Midlands and the North in the same way as it affects London and the South. However, our police organisation is essentially a local organisation. It is based on the cities and perhaps on the regions. There already exists, however, the means for securing co-operation between the police forces. The regional crime squads were formed with the sole objective of tackling serious crime which requires long investigation and where intelligence and the gathering of it are all important. The terrorist crimes fall exactly within the scope of the regional squads, and the Government should extend the operation of the squads to include detectives with responsibility for the terrorist activity.
There is a vital need to inform the public. In Birmingham, I regret to say, there was an inclination among some of the public in the city centre not to take seriously enough the warnings given by the police, not to co-operate swiftly enough in clearing the streets. The police have an extremely difficult job. It is all very well asking them to give full information on why streets should be


cleared, but in an emergency it is not always possible to give full information. Fortunately, there were no injuries in Birmingham, but I cannot imagine a more dangerous situation than when the public feel that they are facing just another bomb scare which need not be taken seriously. That is a recipe for disaster.
There is a responsibility on the Government to get over to the public the clear threat posed by terrorism and urban guerrillas. The public must take the matter seriously. Maybe the public can give the information which is so necessary for detection. The responsibility rests heavily and squarely on the Government. Because of the threat which is now posed by terrorism and because of the urgent need for a Government statement, I oppose the Adjournment of the House and I press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House the need for making that statement at the earliest opportunity.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I have only two points on which I should like some assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before I shall feel disposed to agree to the motion. Even if the motion is carried I assume that the Services Committee can sit during the Easter Recess.
I say that because a serious situation has arisen in connection with the car park in New Palace Yard. At the beginning I was a lone voice in the wilderness opposed to this fantastic enterprise. Now it is too late to fill up the very large hole in New Palace Yard. When the original estimate for the car park was submitted in July 1971, in a report of the Services Committee it was said it would cost £1·3 million. Last year I was told that the figure would be in the region of £2·4 million. I have every reason to believe that it is now much higher. A serious situation has developed in that a large part of the work, to all intents and purposes, has now been completed, but in recent weeks a colossal number of defects have been discovered.
I urge my right hon. Friend and the Services Committee to examine very carefully the schedule which is already being prepared showing the extent to which repairs have had to be carried out to remedy defects which have appeared in

the structure. We were told that the car park would be completed by Easter, but one has only to walk into New Palace Yard to see how much more work remains to be done. I doubt very much whether this wretched car park will be completed by the time we go on to the Summer Recess.
I do not know who the chairman of the Services Committee is, but the car park position is so serious that the Committee should have a meeting during the recess to have a report ready for the House when we resume. There has been some delay in constituting that Committee. All kinds of curious hon. Members now sit on it. [Interruption] I am not one of them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has not got a dog.

Mr. Lipton: I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to show a sense of urgency in this matter.
My next point involves a kind of battle between two Government Departments over 74 acres of land owned by the Lambeth Borough Council at Shirley Oaks in Croydon. Croydon is under Conservative control and Lambeth is under Labour control. We have owned the land for quite a number of years. It is desperately needed for rehousing about 1,500 people. At a late stage the Department of Health and Social Security has butted in. The effect of its intervention is to stop the land belonging to Lambeth from being used for housing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and see that the Department of the Environment wins the battle.
There was an inquiry in December 1972 into Lambeth's appeal against Croydon's refusal to sanction plans for a housing estate at Shirley Oaks. We also wanted to put up some new children's homes to replace older Lambeth homes already there. In the meantime Croydon had granted outline permission to the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board for a 1,200-bed district hospital. At the inquiry the board said that it was considering another site nearby. Then that site was abandoned. The proposition fell through and the board revived its interest in the first site, belonging to Lambeth. The Minister for


Housing and Construction in the previous Government said that the board's revived interest represented new evidence relevant to the appeal. There is a possibility that the appeal will have to be reheard or reopened, despite the fact that the original inspector has already reported.
It would be disastrous if, after all these years, the land on which Lambeth, with its desperate housing needs, proposes to build should be diverted, after the appeal has been heard and the inspector has reported, to an entirely different purpose—a 1,200-bed hospital which is not likely to be erected for many years.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind, first, the need to get the Services Committee to have a serious look at the construction of the car park in New Palace Yard, and, secondly, to see that plans to meet the desperate housing needs of Lambeth's citizens are not thwarted by the last-minute intervention of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board.

6.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: There is one matter which has not been raised by any hon. Member so far in the debate and which, I believe, is a reason why the House should not adjourn. It should not adjourn while certain problems worrying the Army in Northern Ireland remain unresolved. In particular, they are the problems of Service men's pay, and the liability of soldiers to trial by civil courts.
Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland knows that the morale of the men in the Army there is wonderfully good about military matters. That must mean that the soldiers realise that they are doing a valuable and worthwhile job, and that it is only the British Army that prevents civil war in the Province. It must also mean that they realise that their regiments are doing a job as difficult and unpleasant as any the Army has undertaken for centuries.
I do not subscribe to the idea of pulling out the Army before law and order are restored. Those who make that suggestion fail to appreciate the dedication of our soldiers. To bring home the Army would be to break faith with the 200 or more soldiers who have been killed in recent years. The Army, with its won-

derful sense of regimental cohesiveness, would itself say that it owes it to those dead comrades to stay and see the job through. The Army only wishes a freer hand to get on and finish the job.
I come to the subject of Service men's pay; the facts about this are quite clear. The Armed Forces' pay is reviewed every two years. The review was due on 1st April. Service men have been quite clear all along that their new rates of pay would be paid retrospectively from 1st April, but the details of the new rates have not yet been published. However, the Minister of State, in reply to a Question only this afternoon, gave only a qualified promise about retrospective payment. The House should not go on holiday and enjoy itself in the spring sunshine until the question of pay for our soldiers has been settled.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons between Service pay and industrial pay, because they involve so many statistics which are unsuitable to a debate of this nature. However, in October 1973, the latest date for which figures are available, the average weekly hours worked by adult men in industry were 45·6, including overtime, and the average industrial weekly wage was £41·52.
Most soldiers in Northern Ireland on their four months' tour are doing up to 112 hours a week, or even more, on duty. A private first class on scale B, which is by no means the lowest rate of pay—that is, a private who is committed for six to nine years' service—receives only £28·70 a week.
If we compare the dangers, we see that during the period 1969 to March 1974 the regular Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, excluding the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, suffered 211 fatal casualties and more than 1,000 non-fatal casualties.
As for "unsocial hours", the House should ask itself whether it is unsocial to patrol the Bogside in the middle of the night and whether it is unsocial for our troops to be absent from home continuously for four months at a time, with only three days' leave during their period of service in Northern Ireland.
A Government who pay so much attention to social justice and special cases must take note that Service pay has fallen very much behind, and that it


must in all fairness be brought up to date. It has been said that a young pit miner can earn three times as much as a private soldier on active service in Northern Ireland.
Another matter worrying the Army is that soldiers on duty whose actions, for various reasons, have to be investigated or tried to have to appear before civil courts and not military courts. I appreciate that it can be said that it is to the long-term benefit of the Army that it be subject to the same law as others. I am not arguing otherwise: nor would the Army itself ask for special rights. However, when trials have to be held, I say that they should be investigated by military courts.
First, although the Army is acting in support of the civil power and is operating in an integral part of the United Kingdom, the conditions in which it operates, as the casualty rate only too unfortunately demonstrates, amount to active service. Army personnel in Northern Ireland are given medals as for active service.
Northern Ireland is an area of active operation for the Army and it should be declared as such. If legislation is needed, the Government should go ahead with it. To neglect to do so would be unfair to the Army.
Secondly, decisions must be taken instantly by young and inexperienced NCOs when on patrol in conditions of great personal strain and danger. The yellow card with which they are issued is a complicated document. I have a copy here. The card requires an understanding of military operations if it is to be interpreted properly. If a soldier is accused of acting incorrectly and not in accordance with the card, he should at least be able to feel that his actions are being tried and judged by military people who know what it is to be fired at.
If soldiers on duty under active service conditions were to be tried by courts-martial, their trials would be open to the public and the Press in the same way as a civil trial. The same witnesses, the same legal system and the same or similar rights of appeal would prevail. The use of civil courts seems anomalous when such courts try both soldiets who are defending law and order and terrorists who kill and maim voluntarily. Terrorists

carry arms only for subversive reasons; soldiers are compelled to carry them in the line of duty. Whenever arms are carried, sooner or later people will be shot. In perspective, it is wonderful how so few soldiers are trigger-happy in the conditions in which they work.
I ask the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that the Government will take an urgent and a completely fresh look at the two aspects of the work of the Army in Northern Ireland to which I have referred, and will do so without waiting for Lord Gardiner's Committee. I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the recess wihout a clear assurance being given to the Army that these matters will be dealt with.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I desire to say a few words about a non-controversial subject on which I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend before the recess. I refer to the implementation of Section 1 of the Chronically sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The House will remember that the Act was brought into being as a result of a Private Member's Bill that was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I know that the House will be delighted that the Government, in one of their first steps, appointed my hon. Friend as the first Minister with responsibility for the disabled.
My hon. Friend's Act has been described as a charter for the disabled. Undoubtedly it would be so if implemented fully. Unfortunately, despite the many requests that were made, my criticism of the previous Government is that the implementation was far from pursued in any serious way. Section 1 puts upon local authorities the duty to establish a register of the disabled within their boundaries, thereby identifying who are the disabled. The importance of that section is that in Section 2 there is set out in detail many of the duties that must he performed by a local authority in assisting disabled persons.
The House will appreciate that to get a local authority to give the greatest possible service to the disabled within its area it is essential that Section 1 should be implemented as fully as possible. In


other words, the register for the disabled should be as complete as possible. Disabled persons should be identified so that they can be informed of the services that are available to them. The previous Government took certain steps in that direction by asking local authorities by way of circulars or otherwise to perform that duty. Unfortunately, although some local authorities have done tremendously important and useful work, there are many local authorities that have largely failed to perform that duty. My plea is that my right hon. Friend ensures that steps are taken to see that local authorities carry out that duty.
How can that be done? It is a difficult task to identify the disabled. I appreciate that efforts have been made. I suggest that there are certain ways in which it can be done effectively. First, leaflets can be issued to every household in a local authority's area so that details are returned of who are the disabled. If it is suggested that that is too arduous a task, I am certain that many volunteers may be obtained from the various societies that assist the chronically sick and disabled so that the work may be carried out effectively. I understand that an effort has been made in that direction by some councils with satisfactory results.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the often much-maligned students have done an excellent job in the London Borough of Newham in that they have called on every house and have been able to give the relevant department all the information that it needs?

Mr. Weitzman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. It is something that other local authorities should observe. Not only students; there are many praiseworthy societies that do immensely valuable work for the sick and disabled. I am sure that such societies could provide volunteers to carry out that task by way of issuing leaflets and by calling upon households so as to obtain details.
The fact is that far more can be done. I urged the responsible Minister in the previous Government to recognise that there was another way that would be most effective. That Minister went on

television to speak generally about what had been done for pensioners over 80 years. What had been done for those people was desirable and praiseworthy, but it involved only a small number. I urged the Minister that it was essential that he should appear on television, talk on the radio and write in the newspapers so as to acquaint every disabled person with the necessity to register so that the information could be given and the necessary service provided.
I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that steps are taken in that direction. We now have a Minister with responsibilities for the disabled. We of the Labour Government, like Opposition Members, have the utmost concern for the disabled. We are making a major effort to assist them in every way.
It is not just a question of assisting by giving cars. There are many other disabled who can be helped in many other ways—by outings, lectures, help in the home, telephones, and so on. But first we must identify them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will see that someone such as, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, can go on television, or speak on radio and appeal to the people to see that the names appear on the register of the disabled so that we know who they are. I make this earnest plea, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will ensure that practical further steps are taken to assist the disabled in this way.

6.31 p.m.

Sir John Eden: Of the many reasons why the House should not rise this week for the Easter Recess I pick out three. They are all very important. If I speak on them briefly it is only because I know a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
The first of the three reasons has already been mentioned by hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). This is the situation affecting Concorde. I hope that the Leader of the House will understand the desire of the House to have more clarification of the position of the Concorde project before it accepts this motion.
In particular it would be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman made it clear


to the Secretary of State for Industry that we wish to have an early statement about the operational figures, and the discussions which have been going on between the Government and British Airways. Would he ask the Secretary of State to try to single out from British Airways' figures those which refer to the operational costs of Concorde itself? Would he make it clear to what extent British Airways' figures relate to the corporation's belief that the very success of Concorde might have an adverse effect on demand for its Jumbo fleet?
I re-emphasise the point, made by the hon. Member for Newark and others, that what we are concerned with here is not just a single aircraft project but the future of the British aircraft industry as a whole. Earlier today we had Questions about the multi-rôle combat aircraft and the need to get it as early as possible into service with the Royal Air Force. There would be little prospect for it and for its secure future in service if the position of the British aircraft industry were damaged by an interruption in the Concorde project, which opens out the new supersonic era.
The second reason is the rates, and the situation of people in the areas outside the major cities. The increases in rates which are affecting my constituents are very substantial. I know that this is not wholly attributable to the present Government and that many other factors are involved, but I ask the Leader of the House to realise that while we may be in recess our constituents will be getting rate demands which will cause them a great deal of anxiety and anger. Having seen the order of the increases I believe that those feelings are justified.
My last point is the order freezing rents. Could the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction understand what they are doing by the arbitrary application of the order in relation to small private landlords? It is sometimes assumed by the Labour Party that "landlord" is a definition to be applied as an opprobrious term to someone to whom otherwise it occasionally refers as a speculator. The right hon. Gentleman should know that throughout the country, and especially in a constituency like mine, many people of humble origin and

limited means who own their own homes have subdivided them into flatlets and are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet.
Now the Government arbitrarily freeze their rents. This is hitting them especially hard at a time when, as every hon. Member knows, costs have been rising steeply—most especially, the costs of heating in the home. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a sympathetic hearing to my plea on their behalf. No doubt we will have an opportunity to return to the matter before long, but it is only right that, before the House accepts the motion, we have a clear statement that the Secretary of State for the Environment will look with sympathy at the plight of these people, a plight which has been accentuated and exaggerated by the arbitrary decision of the Government.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of the multi-rôle combat aircraft, raised by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), I ask the Government to apply to it all the scepticism at their command. At the recent Koenigswinter Conference in Edinburgh it emerged that the current price for the aircraft was 53·8 million DM per plane, which is about £9½ million. There was not a single informed German at that conference who thought that, within two or three years, we would get the MRCA for less than 75 million to 80 million DM per plane. The truth is that the figure which we were so often given for this carefully costed project— £2·2 million—has gone out of the window.
The costs of materials and of the guidance system continue to soar. There are many factors not within the state of the art, and it is becoming a very serious issue which all of us have to take into account. I draw the attention of the Government to the fact that its technology anyway may have been overtaken by the development of the SAM missiles. All I ask is that the utmost scepticism be applied to the MRCA project.
I want to raise a matter which is much less important. My only excuse is that, during the recess, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can do something about it. I do not apologise for


its triviality. It is the system of allocating tickets for visitors to this House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House waste a great deal of time queuing and going round their hon. Friends trying to cadge tickets for the visitors we all have. If it were necessary, then of course we should do it, but the truth is that it is not necessary to have such a system.
I make no quarrel with the courtesy of the Serjeant at Arms or any of his staff. This is not an attack on the personal courtesy of the Serjeant at Arms. It is a request to my right hon. Friend and the Services Committee to look at the system by which tickets are allocated. At any time up to 3 o'clock one can, on looking up to the Strangers' Gallery, see rows of empty benches. This arises because there is a system of allocation of tickets and hon. Members, being human, tend to pocket the tickets and do not do anything with them if they do not need them. In a Parliament with fewer and fewer Divisions and in which, possibly for good reasons, many colleagues do not come as often as they did in previous Parliaments, many of the tickets may go unused.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at a system whereby hon. Members would be allowed to apply on the days they have in mind for a number of tickets, up to three or four. If this system were adopted there would be a far more rational use of the tickets available. Such a scheme should be considered during the Easter Recess. With the interest which there is is in this Parliament we shall all be faced during the Whitsun and summer periods with requests from many constituents and visitors for tickets. It would be a great help if the system could be changed and rationalised so that maximum use is made of the seats available.
I also wish to raise with my right hon. Friend whether those seats which are almost perpetually empty, which are reserved for members of another place, should not after a certain period be given over to other visitors. It would be helpful for our working lives if this were done.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: When, a good many months ago, plans for the Ipswich southern bypass were announced

by the Department of the Environment they were greeted with the utmost relief throughout my constituency because of their enormous significance in relieving the grave effects of traffic congestion in the borough. This project is also vital for the country since it is one of our major trading arteries, but the plans affect almost every aspect of local life.
It was right that, with a matter of such importance, full use should be made of the Department of the Environment's new consultation policies which were announced under the previous Government, but it was unfortunate—indeed, the date was unfortunate in many respects—that an exhibition of the alternative sets of plans was arranged for 28th February. In the circumstances only a small part of the people of the neighbourhood managed to see the plans. Those were, as I gather, the people living in Nacton, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). Although 28th February may have had a happy ending for the people of Ipswich, in the shape of my return to Parliament, it meant a longer period of delay over the road project.
One of my earliest duties on returning to the House was to ask the new Secretary of State for the Environment what his intentions were regarding public exhibition of the plans. He replied that he would arrange an exhibition for the late spring, as soon as public exhibition facilities were available. I could have told him at that time where public exhibition facilities could have been available the next day.
I asked the Secretary of State whether, in view of the fact that the public exhibition of alternative routes for the bypass would not take place till late spring, he would give information about the three different sections of the road and whether he would give publication of the alternative routes, prior to the holding of the exhibition. This request was refused and I was told that the exhibition formed an integral part of the public consultation procedure.
I should like to know just what that means, because the exhibition date, which had been announced as being in late spring, has now been announced for June, which, even in the circumstances of


the decisions, so far, of the present administration, seems a strange change of date.
The story does not end there. Bearing in mind that any delay would be a vitally important matter for my constituents. I put down a further Question to the Secretary of State for the Environment which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I asked whether grants could be introduced for the provision of double glazing for residents in many roads which were hardest hit by the existing stream of juggernaut and other traffic from foreign parts, from Felixstowe and elsewhere, pending the construction of the bypass. I named a number of roads in Ipswich.
To my total amazement, and that of my constituents, I was told that the scheme was still at an early stage but that when the line of the route had been determined the aim would be to provide, before construction started, noise insulation where that was considered to be justified, and in line with the regulations made under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
This was not the relief for which we were asking. We were asking for relief for hard-pressed people in areas of Ipswich through which traffic at present passes because the Government cannot make up their mind. My constituents are particularly distressed because all kinds of other local schemes are suffering seriously due to the delay. All sorts of things are affected, including a transportation study and plans for zebra crossings.
Particularly tragic is the fact that two fatalities have occurred in Henley Road, in an area just off the bypass. Following these fatalities, involving young children, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would review the applicability of his Department's criteria regarding the establishment of a crossing to be used by schoolchildren on Henley Road. The answer to this was "No". I was told in the reply that my concern about the matter was shared by the Minister of Transport but that a recent survey showed that a crossing could not be justified—even following the deaths of two children—on the basis of new criteria which would shortly be issued by the

Department. All of this has caused a great feeling of frustration among people in Ipswich.
Over the period of six years when a Labour Government were previously in office nothing was done about the future of what was then the county borough. Almost every service we have and almost every aspect of the town's life suffered because some Socialist Minister kept plans for the future of the borough in his "in" tray in Whitehall and refused to make up his mind on the Vincent and Shanckland Cox Reports. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sedentary position. I should point out that none of the delay affecting the County Borough of Ipswich occurred under a Conservative Government. [Interruption.] We seem to be getting further time-wasting interjections from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It should be made clear to him that the delays on the Vincent and Shanckland Cox Reports arose during the period of the Labour administration.
I now return to the question which I was about to put to the right hon. Gentleman, who should have known better than to make such an interjection from a sedentary position. I hope he will take to the Secretary of State for the Environment the message that it is intolerable in these circumstances that people in Ipswich, the roads of which carry a vast amount of the traffic for the Haven ports, should now feel that the same sort of misery will occur for them again because we have a Labour Government or that the matter is merely going to be put off because that Government are not prepared to proceed as quickly as they can with implementing this vitally important scheme.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I am concerned that the House should not adjourn till an extremely serious matter has been dealt with so that it does not become even more serious while we are in recess. I refer to the announcement this morning that the National Industrial Relations Court has ordered the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers to pay a £47,000 fine and has said that if that fine is not paid by 29th April steps will be taken to take into custody the assets and property of the union to meet that sum of money.
We all recognise that the Government have made it quite clear that they intend to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. There are some of us who feel that speedier action should have been taken to ensure that the circumstances we now face could not have arisen. It seems absolutely vital that before the House goes into recess the Secretary of State for Employment should inform the House what exceptional steps he intends to take to avoid the serious situation which could arise following this decision of the court.
We have a number of industrial relations problems. Many of us with industrial relations experience acknowledge that quite often disputes give rise to strike action yet the subject of the strike is not the real basis of the discontent within the industry. A wage claim has been submitted by the AUEW. There are many workers, some within my constituency, who may feel prompted to take industrial action because they are discontented as a result of the response of the engineering employers to their claim. The circumstances are exacerbated by the decision of the Industrial Relations Court.
We could have industrial action in various parts of the country during the Easter Recess. I am sure that the Government would want to avoid such action. The only way it can be avoided is by the Secretary of State for Employment taking some urgent steps. I will not go into this at any greater length because of the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I urge upon the Leader of the House the making of some statement that will create a happier situation.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. George Gardiner: I oppose this motion, following a close perusal of the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday on the subject of land transactions. Any study of that statement and of the reaction to it in a number of journals this morning, not solely those which have been concerned in the writs and matters which have caused the House and the Prime Minister some concern, shows that there are many unanswered questions arising from it. In some ways I believe that the statement deepened the mystery. It would be im-

proper if the House were to adjourn without having heard a fuller explanation from the Prime Minister of some of the substantial public issues involved here. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to make that statement before the House adjourns, I should be happy to return before 29th April to hear his further explanation.
I make it clear that I am not interested at present in a statement concerning the allegations of forged signatures, because that is under investigation by Scotland Yard and it would be improper to demand a statement from the Prime Minister on that subject till the police have reported. Equally, I make it clear, in view of some of the remarks that the Leader of the House made last Thursday, that I am not concerned with the personal position of Mrs. Marcia Williams. For me, the major public issue raised by last week's disclosures and the one on which the Prime Minister has yet to give an answer is the use to which he allowed his private office to be put while he was Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
What emerges clearly from all the evidence adduced so far is that a substantial property development business was being run from his private office and benefiting from all the prestige which that private office confers. Let there be no doubt that it is property development and not just reclamation that we are talking about. If the Prime Minister sticks to the fine distinction which he sought to draw in the House last Thursday, he must be consistent and apply that distinction to to Mr. Field's own activities.
In this question there are really two Mr. Fields with whom we are concerned. The first Mr. Field is the gentleman who acquired a slag heap and sold slag for the building of roads and who, to judge from his own accounts, operated that business at a trading loss. There is the second Mr. Field who sought to dispose of the property at a fat profit, arising from the granting of planning permission and the provision of an access road by the local authority.
It is the conduct of this property development business from the Prime Minister's former private office in the Commons that raises several important issues of public concern. I believe that there is no property developer in London


who could have wished to operate from a more prestigious address. All the evidence at present available points clearly to a misuse of parliamentary facilities here.
In his statement the Prime Minister said that he had known for some years of Mr. Field's business activities, which were perfectly legal and above board. But he has not answered the important questions, in my submission. Did he know that this business was being conducted from his private office? It would seem that he did, but we are not sure. Did he know that the gentleman whom he met and with whom he had a casual conversation about a golf club tie had come to his office to discuss possible land deals? If he did know, did he take or had he taken any steps to stop it? I am prepared to accept the Prime Minister's assurance that he had no connection with this property business.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the issue of instant writs may very well have given certain people an opportunity to get hold of and destroy evidence which would be vital to the police in a criminal action and to those defending a libel action?

Mr. Gardiner: That is an interesting question, to which an answer will be given in due course.
Although I am perfectly prepared to accept the Prime Minister's assurance that he was not engaged in this property development business, the fact remains that it was operating from his private office under his patronage.
The mystery is deepened slightly by the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday in which he said that Mr. Field worked for two years as his office manager without salary. In the light of subsequent knowledge, that is not surprising. Indeed, it is arguable that Mr. Field should have been paying him rent. But Mr. Field, we are told, had little record of previous activity for the Labour Party. How did it come about that he undertook this rather demanding work quite free of charge? The Prime Minister said that he had long known of Mr. Field's business interests. Was it part of the arrangement leading to his appointment that he would be able to use the

facilities of the private office to provide himself with an income? The House and the country have a right to know the answer to that question.
There are further questions that should be answered in connection with this affair. In the House, Members of Parliament and their staff have available free postal facilities provided at public expense for them to use in pursuit of their parliamentary business. Can the Prime Minister give a categoric assurance that those facilities were never used by those who worked in his private office in pursuit of their own business interests?
Furthermore, Members and their staff working here have the use of free telephone facilities, again at public expense, and again provided for use in furtherance of their parliamentary and constituency activities. Is it possible to have a categoric assurance that these free telephone facilities were not used by those working in the Prime Minister's private office in furtherance of their business interests and to make appointments here in that connection?
We have ample evidence of the dangers arising from this kind of arrangement, [Interruption.] If any hon. Member wishes to intervene, I will give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on the understanding that speeches would be short. There are still several hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Gardiner: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I shall delete a substantial part of what I intended to say.
We have already had evidence of the dangers that can arise from this arrangement. I cite just one of the cases. The Prime Minister complained yesterday of a newspaper headline—"Wilson met land dealers". He fails to appreciate its significance in relation to the subheading that appeared under it—
Commons office used for talks.
Does not the Prime Minister understand that so long as his office was being used for these business purposes, he was bound to meet land dealers and clients engaged in it, and so add his prestige as Leader of the Opposition to Mr. Field's attempted transactions?
There have also been accusations of name dropping, but there was no need for Mr. Field to drop the Prime Minister's name to Mr. Philip Moore Clague, a property developer from the Isle of Man, when he came to the private office to do business, for Mr. Field could point to the Prime Minister working at the other end of the same room.
Surely, the lesson we draw from this saga revealed through the Press and by the Prime Minister yesterday is that the standards which are imposed upon civil servants when working for a Prime Minister, or the standards imposed on the Prime Minister's private staff in Downing Street, should also be accepted by those who work in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.
Some hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches in their seated interjections have referred to my previous Press rôle. As the Press was attacked yesterday, I should like to make just one comment which must be made. Unless the free Press had inquired diligently into these matters and published all the evidence, as it was its duty to do, we should still be in total ignorance of the property development business which was being conducted from the Prime Minister's private office.

Mr. Waddington: Does it not seem unfair to my hon. Friend that one of the papers to be attacked yesterday by the Prime Minister was the Daily Mail, yet the Daily Mail, apparently, had information about all the matters before polling day? Does it not, therefore, ill become the Prime Minister to attack the Daily Mail when, if those matters had been made public before polling day, it is highly unlikely that he would be Prime Minister today?

Mr. Gardiner: I wholly agree with my hon. and learned Friend. All the evidence points to the Press showing considerable responsibility in checking every aspect in which it was interested instead of rushing out the evidence during the General Election, which might well have had the effect referred to by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many hon. and right hon. Members whose past connections, if sub-

jected to the process of innuendo as has happened here, would cause them embarrassment, as happened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) 12 years ago in the Vassal affair? Hon. and right hon. Members might have their careers blackened almost beyond repair by the processes that the hon. Gentleman is defending.

Mr. Gardiner: I cannot answer for a case which arose 12 years ago.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling).

Mr. Gardiner: The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that yesterday, but surely my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was suffering not from Press pillorying, but from a bankruptcy hearing. That was a legally protected action and the Press naturally reported it, as is its right and duty. I agree that it had unfortunate effects on my right hon. Friend and his reputation, because he was unable to give an answer to the charges which were made.

Mr. John Gorst: Does not my hon. Friend regard it as strange that the Prime Minister, when complaining about the treatment meted out to Mrs. Marcia Williams by the Press, has not seen fit to do what an ordinary citizen would do in this situation, namely, make a complaint to the Press Council?

Mr. Gardiner: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has sought to present Mrs. Marcia Williams as a persecuted maiden in this situation, although she is herself no stranger to the business of disclosures. There are two versions of the events which the Prime Minister detailed in his statement yesterday. If he has a legitimate complaint—and the Press is never perfect—by all means let a complaint be made to the Press Council, which can properly investigate it.
In conclusion, I say to those in power that a free Press can frequently be inconvenient, irritating or downright infuriating, but the Prime Minister must accept that in a democracy its inquiries are an essential part of that open society in which we all believe.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I have no intention of following the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). Those who swim in the muddy waters in which he seems to find himself at home do little credit to their party or to the House of Commons. I recognise that my hon. Friend is a new Member of the House, but he is in danger of becoming a Conservative Member for Bolsover, or something on those lines.
I turn with relief to my real reason for wishing to oppose the Adjournment of the House on Thursday. It relates to the strange attitude taken by the Government towards the European Economic Community. The new Labour Government have sought in part to disentangle the United Kingdom from the EEC, and yet in some respects they wish to continue along the road of unison in Europe that was followed by the Conservative Government. Some hon. Members may say that this is no reason for opposing the Adjournment of the House for a much-needed Easter break. My point is that in some respects when the Foreign Secretary went to Brussels the other day he made it clear that this country will seek a major renegotiation of terms, and in other respects the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has said that there are parts of the common agricultural policy which virtually will not be operated at all in the United Kingdom.
I am concerned that the House should go into its Easter Recess leaving British producers in a state of indecision which has not been equalled since the war. I refer particularly to British beef producers. Something must be done about this situation or we may be left entirely dependent on imports. We have already heard several speeches which have drawn attention to this problem from the point of view of the producers in the South of England, but I am sure that the rest of the country recognises that the best beef in the country comes from the Midlands, and in particular from Leicestershire. I wish to take this opportunity, on behalf of my constituents, to speak about the problems of beef production.
The production of beef is a long-term project. It takes something like two or three years from the birth of the animal

to the time it goes on the market, and yet, for the first time since the war, the beef producers of this countries have had virtually no long-term encouragement at all. Until a couple of years ago we had the benefit of the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957, which gave a form of fall-back guarantee. This meant that, however hesitant and uncertain the market, the producers had some long-term pledge to which they could work. The Conservative Government changed the situation, and our accession to the EEC has meant that support for beef producers has receded. Many hon. Members are concerned about the Labour Government's attitude to winding up the operations of the intervention board. This has left beef producers in Britain in a state of complete disgust over the situation. They cannot plan for long-term projects in the future. However low prices fall, the Minister has indicated that he will not reintroduce the guarantee or any subsidy. However low prices may fall, the Minister has said that he will not introduce intervention buying. Therefore, I should like the House to have an early debate on this important topic.
Action was taken by the Conservative Government within recent months in respect of other agricultural commodities, but neither that administration nor the present Labour Government should operate a stop-go policy on agriculture. I believe that a long-term solution could be reached in which produce found to be in excess within the Community could be bought up by the intervention board and redistributed, perhaps on subsidised terms, to pensioners in Community countries and to those on supplementary benefits. I feel that a long-term system was needed to cope with the butter situation which faced the Community some time ago, and this is a situation which may face the Community within the space of a few weeks on the question of beef production. Furthermore, it is a situation which may be faced over the commodity of sugar in the near future. I oppose the Adjournment motion because I believe that the House should take a couple of days in which to shake out this whole subject.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)


about the situation in the beef industry. It is a convention in this debate for hon. Members to give reasons why the House should not adjourn. On this occasion this feeling runs very strongly on the Conservative benches when we are dealing with the important subject of agriculture.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will not reply to this debate in the customary way by saying that he will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to this matter. There is an urgent need for a statement on beef production before the House rises. I cannot remember a debate on the Adjournment motion in which so many hon. Members have spoken on the same topic. This has happened because we are all acutely aware from our constituencies and from the general situation of the serious problem that we face. It is our duty to give a clear warning of the situation since certain Labour Members appear to take a slightly lighthearted view on this topic. However, I believe that the penny is beginning to drop that the problem now facing our constituent farmers could soon be a problem that in nine months' or a year's time will face their constituent consumers.
Farmers are already anticipating the prospect of rationing. They expect rationing of cheese and of milk—and the situation will be worsened by the subsidy on milk which will further encourage demand when milk is likely to be short. There is also a real prospect of the rationing of beef. One has only to look at the figures of calf slaughterings to realise the effect that they will have on subsequent beef production. The figures point to an extremely serious situation. This problem must be taken seriously and action must be taken immediately.
A further acute problem that must be faced is that there is a drastic lack of confidence among farmers, who feel that they have been double-crossed by successive Governments. This is a joint responsibility of both Conservative and the Labour Governments. On our accession to the Community, British farmers were persuaded to abandon the old support system in favour of the new European system. They accepted the loss of the previous system because a new system was to replace it. However, what they

now find as a result of the visit by the Minister of Agriculture to Brussels is that the new system has been abandoned and that there is no support system whatever for beef. I am not referring to any great pressure group, but to genuine concern among sensible level-headed people who are not given to emotive or excitable reactions to events.
I have never seen farmers so worried, and I am in no doubt that their concern about beef production in this country is genuine. Unless the situation is urgently tackled, it will raise enormous problems of supply. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) makes comments from a seated position, but he should recognise that this is a serious situation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. King: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman since I am about to conclude my remarks.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will not fob us off with the conventional reply, but will arrange for his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement tomorrow.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: In rising now, I have no wish to stop others of my hon. Friends from participating in the debate. My remarks will be extremely brief, since I wish to make only one point.
A large number of my hon. Friends have asked that the Minister of Agriculture should come to the House before the recess to make a statement about certain sections of agriculture. This is very important, and I fully support the pleas of my hon. Friends.
The Minister of Agriculture has always had a good reputation with the farming industry and with the House. He is a man whom we all like and respect. I hope that he will take very seriously what has been said today and will not allow his Cabinet colleagues to over-rule him because their short-term political and electoral interests run contrary to the long-term interests of the country.
We are talking about the whole nation. We are talking about consumers and farmers alike. What happens in the next


few months to British agriculture may affect what we have in the way of food for years to come. It would be a tragedy and a disgrace if, because of the need to keep down prices—which we can all understand and appreciate—nothing was done to help agriculture. We shall rue the day if we allow that industry to decline, as it has shown every sign of declining in past months.
That is why my hon. Friends have said that it is necessary for a statement to be made, especially about a guaranteed price or an intervention price for beef. I do not think that we shall be at all happy to go away for the Easter Recess until that has happened.
It is customary on these occasions for me to wish the Government—I used to wish the Opposition—a happy Easter Recess. The Government have been in office for the space of only five weeks, and they must be longing for the Easter Recess more than any other Government I have known. I hope that they will use the fortnight's recess to sort out the differences in the Cabinet over the Common Market, Concorde, and whether speculation is speculation or reclamation. I wish them a happy Easter. I can only hope that they will enjoy it in their country homes.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Short.

Mr. John Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Does your calling the Leader of the House give any indication of your preparedness to accept a closure motion after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken? A number of my hon. Friends and I have been sitting here since 3.30, knowing that the Ten o'clock rule has been suspended, anxious to take a constructive part in this debate and not to engage in innuendo or smear tactics. In the light of that, I request respectfully that we hear some indication from you that you will not be disposed to accept a closure motion and thereby preclude the interventions of a number of hon. Members who, in my view, have earned some ticket to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take into account all relevant factors if and when I have to decide on the proposition, "That the Question be now put".

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I reciprocate the good wishes for Easter of the right hon Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), even though they were rather qualified.
There have been a great many speeches about agriculture, and I intend to devote the first part of my reply to them.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a full description in his statement to the House on 25th March of the agreement reached in Brussels on the 1974–75 EEC prices. He emphasised that the special measures agreed for the United Kingdom fulfilled the Government's aim of ensuring that the price increases decided by the Council would not result in an increase in the prices of basic foodstuffs to the British housewife.
At the same time the difficulties of livestock producers have been dealt with by an increase of £10 per calf—that is, an increase of more than 100 per cent. —in the calf subsidy, and by the payment of a special subsidy for pigs in the next four months starting at 50p a score in the first month and dropping to 15p a score in the fourth month.
The United Kingdom beef market remains linked to beef markets in other member countries. That puts a floor on our market. With an additional £38 million in aid, beef producers will be receiving £100 million a year in direct support: calf, beef cow, hill cow and winter keep subsidies.
Beef production and the beef market are more robust than some commentators allow. The whole industry will not collapse because the Government have taken the option not to operate permanent intervention. It is economic nonsense and social injustice to take large quantities of beef off the market in order to keep the price above the level that the housewife can afford. The task of the Government is to hold a fair balance between the food producers and the housewives.
We shall watch the beef market carefully during the next six months. We are not prepared to forecast actual market prices in six months' time, but the Government have demonstrated their ability to take pragmatic action when necessary. There is a problem. It is a problem which we inherited. But, like all the


other problems that we inherited, we shall do our best to meet it.
On pigs, the Government took action within two to three weeks of coming into office. We could not have moved more quickly, and I cannot answer for the tardiness of the previous administration. We think that 50p per score or £3·50 for the average pig is a valuable additional cash injection. There are those who say that it will not cover production costs, but these vary from farm to farm. With firmer prices in prospect, the decline in the breeding herd should end.
Market prices should strengthen, for a variety of reasons. First, prices usually increase during spring and early summer. Secondly, monetary compensatory amounts, or subsidy, paid on imports will be cut by a half at the beginning of May. The import subsidy on Danish bacon will be cut from £71 per ton to £33 per ton. Third, the recent reduction in the breeding herd will reduce supplies and strengthen prices later this year.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I appreciate that the cost of beef can be reflected in the shops and, therefore, that it is undesirable to increase the price of beef. But is my right hon. Friend aware that the big problem is the ever-escalating increase in the cost of feed? Is it not possible for the Minister of Agriculture to consider subsidising the cost of feedstuffs to our farmers?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend has spoken already on this subject.
I turn now to the common agricultural policy and food prices. The recent decisions on CAP prices will have little effect on United Kingdom milk producers. The increase in the target price for milk will be reflected in a higher intervention price for skimmed milk powder. The Community intervention price for butter is unchanged.
The general butter subsidy has been increased in the United Kingdom to a new rate of £126·75 per ton, or over 5·5p per lb. This has operated from 1st April and nullifies the effect of the transitional increase in the intervention price for butter in the United Kingdom.
The question of introducing subsidies on cheese and possibly on other dairy products is still under consideration, and

no announcement can yet be made. The increase in the price of milk for manufacture resulting from the CAP price decisions may lead to higher prices for milk products in general, but the Government have said that the prices of basic foodstuffs will not increase as a result of these decisions.
The returns of United Kingdom milk producers will be unaffected by the action taken to reduce the price of milk and to hold the price of butter and possibly that of cheese. The most recent decisions on CAP prices will also have little effect upon their returns, as these depend primarily upon the guaranteed price determined for 1974–75 by the previous administration.
I want now to say a little about milk supplies. Since last September the level of United Kingdom milk production has been running below that of the previous year. Concern has been expressed today about that matter. It has been suggested that profits are too low. However, there are many uncertainties about the situation. A better assessment will be possible perhaps after the spring flush and when the prospects for cereal prices after the 1974 harvest are clearer. I take seriously all the speeches that have been made on that matter and will refer them to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
I turn now to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who spoke about Concorde.
On taking office the Government found a situation on Concorde very different from that when we last had responsibility for the project and also different from that which had been disclosed publicly since. In view of the wide interest in the project, the many people concerned with its manufacture and the large sums of public money involved, my right hon. Friend placed the main facts before the the House on 18th March. This has enabled all who are interested to express their views before a decision is taken.
My right hon. Friend is currently engaged in discussions with the French Government on the practical choices open to the Governments, and these will be taken fully into account in arriving at


a decision. I cannot say when the process of consultation with the French and other interested parties will reach a point when the Government feel able to make a decision. We fully recognise the need to avoid prolonging the period of uncertainty more than is absolutely necessary.
My right hon. Friend informed the House on 1st April that his discussions have been frank and cordial. He and his French colleague will be continuing consultations, but the House must realise that the presidential election in France may delay this process.
My right hon. Friend has also discussed the future of the project at first hand with many of those engaged in it, and a delegation, led by the Lord Mayor of Bristol, called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st April. All the views expressed, as well as the views expressed by hon. Members today, will be fully taken into account by the Government in reaching their decision. I am not attracted to the proposal of setting up a Select Committee, but I shall certainly consider it.

Sir J. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the Government are in a position shortly to make any further statement, particularly about the discussions that they have been having with British Airways on the operational figures, that statement will be made in this House?

Mr. Short: Any statement will certainly be made in the House.
I turn now to what has been said on roads and a great variety of other matters.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) spoke about the approaches to Heathrow Airport. As I pass along that road at least twice a week I know the problem there. There is a powerful feeling about it in the West London area, and we recognise it.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about hostility by the Government towards Maplin. There is no hostility towards Maplin. We simply want to be objective about it. However, if a decision were taken not to proceed with Maplin, this would have consequences for communications in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport.

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) referred to a problem in his area. I realise the importance of the matter to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I appreciate the fact that this matter is holding back other projects, such as pedestrian crossings. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman tried to make party political points out of this human problem. He was not serving the interests of the people of Ipswich by treating the matter in the way that he did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) referred to the Sharp Report. On 25th March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that the Report on Mobility of Physically Disabled People had been published. She announced that she would be considering all aspects of that report and would make a statement in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford spoke also about nurses' pay. I appreciate his concern, and I will pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend. We accept that the increased charges to nurses are causing great concern. They came into operation on 1st April, having been negotiated through the Whitley Council in the normal way. The nurses received a pay increase within the limits of stage 3 from 1st April. My right hon. Friend is shortly to see representatives of the nurses' and midwives' Whitley Council staff side to discuss a number of problems connected with nurses' pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) referred to the closure of the Beaverbrook Press in Scotland. I think that I can help him. He talked about the desire of the action group—a co-operative group of workers who are trying to set up a new newspaper—for Government assistance in a feasibility study. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry went to talk to that group this week, and he has reported to the Government. As a result, I am pleased to tell the House that we shall be able to help in this feasibility study. We will help in a small way provided that the body which conducts the feasibility study is acceptable to the Government and provided that we approve the scope of the study. Help


with the feasibility study does not commit us in any way to any further help in the event of a newspaper being started.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) read some correspondence concerning Eastbourne. I am sure that he does not expect me to comment on it tonight. However, if he feels that he has some evidence, perhaps he will pass these letters to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will certainly examine them.

Mr. Gow: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I, as a new Member, ask for his guidance, in his capacity as Leader of the House, on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is it not the custom of the House, and is it not for the Leader of the House to give guidance, that when an hon. Member seeks to raise serious allegations about another hon. Member's constituency he should give notice to the hon. Member concerned? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the habit of making allegations in this House, with the privilege afforded by the House. when such allegations would not be repeated outside is to be deprecated?

Mr. Short: I believe that the hon. Gentleman raised this matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker earlier in the debate and received a reply. [Interruption.] This is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not for me.
On the second point, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman heard the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) rather later in the debate.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) referred to scientists' pay. The Pay Board's report on Government scientists' pay is published today. It makes recommendations on the method by which the pay of Civil Service scientists should be determined In the terms of an exchange of correspondence at the time that the reference was made both sides agreed to accept the board's recommendations. We are now giving urgent consideration, with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, to the action that should be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) referred to

the important matter of mortgages. Both he and the House will be aware that there has been a great deal of activity this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making a statement on this matter after Question Time tomorrow.
My hon. Friend also referred to London weighting. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in his speech on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill explained that the law regarding pay is still part of the law of the land. Until this law is changed we are bound by it. Later today, if we get to it, we shall be discussing a Bill which, among other things, would give the Government power to abolish the Pay Board by affirmative resolution of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment referred to London weighting in his speech in the House on 18th March. He said that the Government had urged the Pay Board to speed up its report on London weighting. He stressed that the problem was one which manifestly required independent examination, and he urged everyone concerned to await the board's report. My right hon. Friend subsequently saw a delegation of local authority employers and unions and explained why an interim increase would not be appropriate and the need to await the board's report. However, he did undertake to give careful consideration to their representations.
There has been some publicity and some statements today about the London boroughs' commitment to increase the allowance retrospectively. I am pleased to note that the GLC is opposed to any long-term commitment ahead of the Pay Board's report. We believe that it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the report. Such action could only make a longterm solution much more difficult.
My right hon. Friend's argument against an interim increase in no way means that he does not accept the real sense of frustration felt by local authority staff, or that he does not fully understand the problems that London employers are facing. It is not just a question of extra pay, although that is a factor. There are many other factors that affect a person's decision whether or not to work in London. On pay, the Government are committed to getting rid of the statutory


controls that produced the existing state of inflexibility in negotiations, but it has never been argued that that can be done "at a stroke".
As the House will know, the Prime Minister met Sir Reginald Goodwin and some of his colleagues last Friday to discuss the problems facing the GLC and the London boroughs. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment met both sides of the teachers' Burnham Committee on 8th April. Both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend undertook to consider the views expressed to them before reaching a final decision on this question and on the question of an interim award.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, but can he tell me something definite to help the 900 children who, every day, are not receiving any education? We are 63 teachers short, and I want to know what is to happen between now and June. I want these children in my constituency to receive education.

Mr. Short: On the question of pay, I have already said that the Secretary of State has met the two sides of the Burnham Committee and leaders of the GLC, and he has promised to consider what has been said about the longer-term position and also about an interim settlement.
Both the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) raised the question of rates, and indeed there will be savage rate increases for many people this year. I believe that there are considerable problems in rural areas, and I do not think that any Government, least of all the previous Conservative Government, have adequately turned their attention to rural problems—housing, transport, sanitation, lighting, amenities and education.
There are these problems in rural areas, but they are not in the same category as those in the older inner cities where there are interlocking social and physical problems of immense proportion. It was for that reason that we decided to alter the distribution of this year's rate support grant, and I believe that that is widely understood throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) raised the question of terrorism. This, unfortunately, has been developing over the last few years. It is not something that has started to develop during the last four weeks. The Government take an extremely serious view of the situation. We are paying a great deal of attention to measures needed to combat it, and we shall employ whatever policies and tactics are necessary for that purpose. I trust that we shall have the support of the Conservative Party in dealing with this problem, just as hon. Gentlemen opposite had our support during the last three years in trying to deal with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) raised the question of the Japanese ball bearing firm. We were looking forward to getting this firm in Britain. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry, after meeting the trade unions, authorised a letter from the Department to the firm saying that the Government would welcome its establishment in Britain provided that certain assurances were given, but the firm—NSK—has not yet replied to that letter. I am not in a position to give details of the assurances because these are confidential. However, I can tell the House that one assurance was that the firm would set up its enterprise in one of the assisted areas. I think it is fairly well known that if it does so the firm will be established in Peterlee in Durham.
The trade unions concerned have expressed their agreement with this project, as did the TUC. The sole British owned manufacturer in the United Kingdom—Ransome Hoffman Pollard—is concerned that this development could lead to some difficulties for it. I am told that the Department of Industry is in close touch with RHP and is ready to discuss any problems that the firm foresees for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) raised the question of a piece of land, and I shall immediately draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Palace Yard car park. I understand that the Services Committee is meeting for the first time tonight, and


I shall draw its attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) called the attention of the House to the AUEW dispute with the NIRC. I recognise the great anxiety of all my hon. Friends about these developments. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State is already fully seized of this great problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, (Mr. Hooley) raised the question of the drought and famine in Africa. In Sahel—that is the name given to the six countries in Africa—there is a total population of 25 million, and it is estimated that of that figure 4 million to 5 million are at risk as a result of the drought. It has already been announced in the House that we are providing aid in excess of £3·5 million and that, subject to parliamentary approval, a further contribution of £500,000 will be made to the United Nations Sahel disaster fund. The Minister of Overseas Development will be answering Questions on this in the House tomorrow.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) spoke about the Army, and raised first the question of Army pay. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that the Armed Forces Review Body is conducting a review of Service pay, and its report should be ready within the next few weeks. This is an independent body, and it is not, therefore, appropriate for me to suggest what considerations it should take into account, but I have no doubt that it will take full account of the important points made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I add my tribute to that paid by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Army for the magnificent job that it is doing in Northern Ireland.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) spoke about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The implementation of this Act throughout the country is patchy. My hon. and learned Friend made useful suggestions for making its powers better

known and for encouraging disabled people to register. I shall see and discuss with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Disabled) what can be done, and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising the matter.
I refer for the third time to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, who spoke about the rent freeze. We realise that this hits the small landlord rather hard, but here again, as with beef, the Government have to maintain a balance between the supplier on the one hand and the consumer on the other—in this case the landlord and the tenant —in the fight against inflation. The Government intend to fight inflation at every point where it is possible to attack it with every weapon that we have available, and the control of rents is one. Legislation will be introduced in the autumn of this year to replace the freeze.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the multi-rôle combat aircraft, but he will not expect me to reply to his detailed technical point. I will certainly pass on what he said. I am sure that the newly-elected Chairman of the Services Committee will take note of what he said about tickets for the Gallery. There is a real problem and I have a good deal of sympathy with what he said.
I felt that the speech of the hon. Member for Reigate was beneath contempt. The best comment on it was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). The hon. Member asked for an investigation into the misuse of parliamentary facilities. I am agreeable to something of that sort, provided that it includes the Press Gallery, where there may be evidence of misuse by journalists of facilities there for party political purposes. I hope that any inquiry there will be retrospective.
I hope that I have dealt as fully as possible with the points raised and that the House will feel able to agree to the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes, 60.

Division No. 8.
AYES
[7.51 p.m


Abse, Leo
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Millan, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Ashiey, Jack
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Gourley, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Oakes, Gordon


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Hardy, Peter
o'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bradley, Tom
Henderson,Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Brown,Bob(NewcastleuponTyne,W.)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Hugh C. (Glasgow, Proven)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Brown, Ronald [...]ney, S. &amp; S[...]ditch)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Prescott, John


Buchanan, Richard(G'gow,Springbrn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce([...]WoodGreen)
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Jackson, Colin
Radice, Giles


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reid, George


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter, Ray
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clemitson, Ivor
John, Brynmor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael
Johnson, James(K'ston upon Hull, W)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Colguhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rooker, J. W.


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Creigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S&amp;F'sb'ry)
Judd, Frank
Sedgemore, Bryan


Cunningham, Dr.JohnA. (Whiteh'v'n)
Kaufman, Gerald
Selby, Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur (CltyofW' minsterP'ton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp;Wishaw)
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Smail, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Snape, Peter


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Stott, Roger


Edge, Geoff
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacCormack, Iain
Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Tierney, S.


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry (St'llng, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
McGuire, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael, Rt. Hn.
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ford, Ben
Marguand, David
Watkins, David


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Watt, Hamish


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
White, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian





Whitehead, Phillip
Willlams, Rt. Hn. Shirley(H'f'd &amp; St'ge)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)



Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wise, Mrs. Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woodall, Alec
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Ancram, M.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Baker, Kenneth
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Beith, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Kilfedder, James A.
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shersby, Michael


Britten, Leon
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Channon, Paul
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Strnford)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Crouch, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Durant, Tony
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Money, Ernie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Emery, Peter
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Viggers, Peter


Farr, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Waddington, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)



Gorst, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Redmond, Robert
Mr. John Biffen and


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. Patrick Cormack.


Hawkins, Paul

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 28.

Division No. 9.]
AYES
[8.3 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Hatton, Frank


Allaun, Frank
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Bates, Alf
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Janner, Greville


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Booth, Albert
Evans, J. (Newton)
Johnson, James (K'ston uponMull, W.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred(Moray &amp;Nairn)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bradley, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown,Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Foot, Michael, Rt. Hn.
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Proven)
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Forrester, John
Kllroy-Silk, Robert


Buchanan, Richard(G'gow, Springbrn)
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Kinnock, Neil


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wlch)
Freeson, Reginald
Lamborn, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lamond, James


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce
Lawson, George(Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)


Carter, Ray
Gllbert, Dr. John
Lee, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Golding, John
Leslor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cocks, Michael
Gourley, Harry
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Graham, Ted
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cox, Thomas
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Lipton, Marcus


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Lomas, Kenneth


Cunningham, G.(Islington,S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Loyden, Eddie


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Harper, Joseph
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, Danzil (Llanelli)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McElhone, Frank




MacFarquhar, Roderick
Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McGuire, Michael
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Swain, Thomas


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, D. E. (Merloneth)


MacLennan, Robert
Radice, Giles
Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tierney, Sydney


Magee, Bryan
Reid, George
Tinn, James


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tomlinson, John


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tomney, Frank


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tuck, Raphael


Mayhew,Christopher(G'wh,W'wch,E)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wainwright, R. (Colne Valley)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rodgers,William (Teesside,St'ckton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mendelson, John
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Milian, Bruce
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Watt, Hamish


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Molloy, William
Sedgemore, Bryan
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Selby, Harry
White, James


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyno)
Whitlock, William


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&amp;P'plar)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Murray, Ronald King
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hamp'n,N.E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C.(S'hwark,Dulwich)
Williams,Rt.Hn. Shirley(HTd&amp;Sege)


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Ovenden, John
Small, William
Woodall, Alec


Owen, Dr. David
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
Wriggiesworth, Ian


Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. J. D. Demand and


Perry, Ernest G.
Stott, Roger
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Phipps Dr. Colin
Strang, Gavin





NOES


Berry, Hon. Anthony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Emery, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Farr, John
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Wainwright, Richard (CoMe Valley)


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Hawkins, Paul
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ritkind, Malcolm
Mr. John BiRen and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Patrick Cormack.


Kilfedder, James A.
Silvesler, Fred

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 29th April.

Orders of the Day — PRICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I put it to you that this is a Bill of major constitutional importance that confers upon the Secretary of State and extra-parliamentary bodies far-reaching powers, and that it is not therefore a measure that should suitably be taken at this hour of night? It would be much more suitable for it to be deferred till a later date. So far as I can see, no particular purpose would be lost by deferring it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have listened to what the hon. Member has said, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could not discussions be undertaken through the usual channels, because this is a Bill of fundamental importance which should have been taken at 3.30 p.m. on a proper parliamentary day? We had an extremely important debate which was foreshortened and in which hon. Members had extremely important comments to make which they will not now be allowed to bring up. It would have been more sensible for that debate to have been continued and for the debate on the Bill to be postponed. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to try to set in train through the usual channels an attempt to have the debate postponed until another day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no power in this matter.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I accept your ruling on my previous point of order, but there is another matter of some significance. It will not have escaped your notice that one clause of the Bill is of considerable importance in relation to the activities of the Pay Board, for which the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has no ministerial responsi-

bility. I submit that it is a contempt of the House that the Secretary of State for Employment, who has departmental responsibility for this aspect of the Bill, is not here. We canot expect a satisfactory reply to the debate unless the right hon. Gentleman is present to hear the arguments upon it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Before I call the right hon. Lady to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and others.

8.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It would be helpful to the House if I began by explaining the general approach of my Department to prices, as well as outlining the Bill is some detail. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is here and, of course, we shall deal in Committee with the matters referred to by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. BruceGardyne).
We live in a period of disturbing inflation. Prices are rising at a rate which may reach about 12 to 15 per cent. or even more by the end of the year. Some of the most reliable estimates given by independent economic sources suggest possible rates of inflation as high as 18 or 19 per cent. by the end of this year. Since 1970, all prices have risen by 39·2 per cent. and food prices by 54·4 per cent. These are higher figures than in almost any other country in the OECD group.
There is a point at which inflation gets out of control and begins to beget inflation. In such circumstances, no one saves and no one invests. It is not in the interests of industry for inflation to reach those levels and therefore the Government believe that it must be of the highest possible priority to take whatever action is open to them to attempt to modify the present terrifying rates of inflation. We also have to consider that built into the present situation is an accelerator in the


form of threshold agreements. While they can in some circumstances act as a safeguard, they can also act as an accelerator.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose—

Mrs. Williams: I hope that I shall be allowed to develop my argument a little more before giving way.
We therefore intend to take necessarily tough measures to curb inflation.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member must give me a little time. He may intervene later. It is only proper to allow me at least to introduce my speech.
Industry has reached the end of what has been a period of rapid consumer boom and the end of a period which has seen the three-day week. It faces a rising cost of fuel and other raw materials and consequently the liquidity of companies in many instances is considerably reduced compared with a year ago. In some instances there are pressures upon profits.
The Government fully accept the need for investment and growth and will seek ways to protect the need for investment and growth.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: rose—

Mrs. Williams: I must ask hon. Members to allow me at least to begin to develop my arguments.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: rose—

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Points have already been raised about the late hour at which discussion on the Bill has begun. Is it the Government's intention to steamroller the Bill through without giving chances for hon. Members to intervene? Will not the Minister give way at all on one of the most important Bills to come before the House for a long time? Does not her action reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that the Bill should be taken away and brought back on another occasion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's second observation is not within

the competence of the Chair. The right hon. Lady has an absolute right to put her case, and I have no doubt that at an appropriate moment she will be prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman if she sees fit.

Mrs. Williams: I have always given way in the past, and I do not intend to change my practice, but I ask for at least an opportunity to express the broad theme to which I shall be speaking before I give way.
We believe that the immediate need, despite the circumstances I have outlined, is above all to get control of the inflation that faces the country. It is a matter which is beyond party, a matter of which all right hon. and hon. Members must be acutely aware. Unless steps are taken to control the projected rate of inflation, there will be no future for industry, any more than there will be a future for the consumer.
It is for that reason that the Government will give absolute priority in the short term to measures to deal with inflation. They will take into account the need to take true cognisance of industry's needs. Industry knows that, and shares our view. I believe that the control of inflation is of overriding importance.
There is another Government objective of prime importance. Inflation, serious as it is for all our citizens, is most acute in its effect on those with fixed incomes or low incomes.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Williams: If I may first give my second point, I will give way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I wanted to ask—

Mrs. Williams: When I have set out my broad introduction, I shall discuss in detail the points I am now making. Hon. Members should restrain themselves until I return to those points, when I shall take questions they wish to raise.
Secondly, therefore, it is the Government's intention to take additional steps to protect those on low incomes or pensions, and those with large families. That is the reason for the concentration upon essential foodstuffs and essential goods in the non-food sector, but goods which are basic parts of the household budget. That


forms an important part of what we are trying to do.
Families with incomes of less than £20 a week spend about a third of their incomes on food, whereas families earning more than £60 a week and up to £80 a week spend only 21 per cent. on food, while those with incomes of more than £80 a week spend only 17 per cent. on food. Therefore, steps to deal directly with essential foodstuffs, far from being indiscriminate, as the Opposition so often claim, are precisely directed towards assisting lower income families than larger income families, because the lower income families spend more of their income on food.

Mr. John Gorst: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Williams: May I finish my introductory remarks, and then give way?
Our second major object is to seek to protect from inflation those least able to fight it, those for whom the upward spiral of prices in the shops is not just a daily headache, but a daily nightmare. Seeking greater stability for the items to which I have referred, even where most of the cost thereby falls on other less essential items, is a vital part of what the Government are trying to do.
I am pleased to say that after detailed consultations with the retail trade—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that warm reception for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. My right hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased to have received it from the Opposition.
After detailed consultations with the retail trade, the food industry and the CBI, I think that there is some hope of voluntary agreement between them and the Government on the lines I have indicated. I shall return to that matter in greater detail later.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She said two or three pages back that inflation destroyed the incentive to save and to invest; but the Bill takes from saving and investment and gives to consumption, so surely its contribution towards accelerating the rate of inflation is quite the reverse of what she claims.

Mrs. Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech rather than an intervention. No doubt he will make his speech when the time comes. I can only say that I do not agree with him. Perhaps if he listens to the rest of my speech, he will not agree with himself.

Mr. Gorst: The right hon. Lady made a point about the nature of people's incomes and how much they spend on food as a proportion of their weekly budget. She used that as an argument for not giving subsidies discriminately. Can she give us any information about what proportion of the total population fall into the categories she gave, so that we may form a judgment about whether that would be practical?

Mrs. Williams: One of the problems about giving way in a speech is that there are often figures to come later which may go some way towards answering the questions asked. That is the case with the last intervention. The hon. Gentleman will have further information in answer to his question. That is why it may be helpful to proceed a little further before I answer more interventions.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I, too, must refer her back several pages to a rather important point that she made. The right hon. Lady said that it was the Government's estimation that corporate liquidity was much diminished. Her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget debate that it was the Government's estimation that corporate liquidity was at present very extensive. Can the right hon. Lady explain the Government's view on the matter?

Mrs. Williams: I did not say that corporate liquidity was much diminished. I said that there were pressures on liquidity as a result of the three-day week and of some of the effects of rising costs. It is the Government's view—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for South Angus please allow me to reply, as I was polite enough to allow him to intervene? All I said was that liquidity was extremely high towards the end of last year, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House. It has been put to me that since then there have been pressures on that liquidity, pressures that


might well grow. I was conveying that thought to the House. It is a thought that has been put to me by the CBI and other representatives of industry.
One of the major instruments for restraining prices remains the Price Commission. I have put forward several proposals for amendments to the Price Code. The first was the cut of 10 per cent. in distributors' gross margins, and the second was a three-month interval, as a general rule, between price increases introduced by manufacturing firms. I ask the House to note the phrase "as a general rule ". The third was an end to the so-called sticky label scandal of pricing up goods on display, which the trade dislikes almost as much as the housewife does, and which it is anxious, with us, to police and prevent.
I also intend that there should be a more fundamental review of the Price Code early in the summer, which will allow both retailers and manufacturers to put to us their points on such questions as investment, the safeguards in the code, return on capital and the other matters that greatly concern them. I hope that the House will recognise that that is more appropriately done with time for fairly lengthy and detailed consultations.
The effect of the measures that I am putting before the House is undoubtedly to tighten control over prices. I now turn from what I have said about the Price Code to two other elements in our prices policy—first, food subsidies and then the Bill now before the House.
Clause 1 deals both with food subsidies and with the enforcement of arrangements made for subsidising food. It is only right to give the House as much information as I can, even when that information goes beyond what is in the Bill. Clause 1 gives the Government the power to honour the pledge made during the election to subsidise basic foodstuffs. We believe that the basis upon which those foodstuffs should be chosen is to decide whether they are items which bear proportionally larger in the expenditure of the poorer families.
I have been asked by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to give some figures and I can immediately give him figures relating to milk. The proportion of total expenditure on milk by pensioners is 65 per cent. more per head

than for all the rest of the population, and pensioners constitute approximately one-fifth of the population. Similarly, the proportion of expenditure on bread by pensioners is 85 per cent. greater per capita than for the rest of the country. If we take only those two items, which have already been subsidised, the proportional expenditure is considerably greater for pensioners, with whom I hope the House will be concerned, than it is for the population as a whole. Generally speaking, that is also true of low-income families.
We are attempting by the use of food subsidies to break directly into the inflationary spiral. I have made it clear to the House time and again that we are not claiming to be able to cut prices at a stroke. However, we believe that there are some foodstuffs that are so essential and so necessary to the well being of families that it falls to the Government, in the present period of massively rising inflation, to attempt to control those prices as effectively as we can. In some instances, raw material cost increases are largely responsible. I repeat "in some instances "; it is not invariably true. In such instances, the subsidy may be an appropriate weapon, and we believe that it is.
We have noticed that previous attempts at means-tested subsidies, including cheap welfare milk and more recently the butter subsidy, all suffer from a relatively low rate of take-up. They suffer in that way because they identify the less well off as poor. We do not believe that those who are poor should be obliged, in effect, to lose their self-respect as well as to announce their poverty. Therefore, the Government are not attracted to means-tested subsidies instead of subsidies chosen to concentrate upon the lower paid family.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Lady believes that milk is an important item in our diet. Shy obviously believes that it is important for children. Why is it, when so much money is being spent on subsidising milk, that free school milk has not been restored?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer—that legislation would be reqt ired and it is impossible for the Government to reintroduce immediately any element of free school milk


until the necessary legislation passes through the House.
The Bill authorises expenditure on subsidies up to a total financial limit of £700 million. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his Budget Statement, we believe that in the current financial year, 1974–75, it will be right to spend about £550 million in all upon food subsidies. The financial limit in the Bill gives us something in hand. Clause 1(2)(a) provides for milk, butter and bread subsidies. Clause 1(2)(b) contains the power to add further food subsidies by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—in other words, the House will have an opportunity to pronounce upon any additional subsidy schemes in addition to those already embodied in the Bill.
Milk, of course, was subsidised by the previous administration, although sometimes when listening to Opposition right hon. and hon. Members might suppose that they had never subsidised anything. The subsidy on all grades of milk will increase by a penny a pint with effect from 21st April. The cost will be £127 million in 1974–75 and £134 million in a full year. The administration of the scheme will continue to be through the Milk Marketing Board. The effect on the overall food index—I am not referring to any specialised index concerned with pensioners—will be a reduction of nearly 3 per cent. We believe that milk is a valuable food and one well worth subsidising.
Butter is a second example of a commodity which was subsidised by the previous administration. It was subsidised on the basis of 2p per pound—I am now not talking about the so-called butter coupon system, but of the overall subsidy. This cost £18 million a year, of which half was met from EEC funds—the FEOGA fund.
The subsidy will be increased by 3½p per pound and will cost £33 million in a full year. The EEC will continue to make its contribution towards the original 2p per pound subsidy, but not to the additional subsidy, which will be implemented by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and paid at the packing stage. The result will be a reduction of about ½ per cent. on the food index.
I made a statement about bread on 20th March, and I am grateful to the baking industry for co-operating in bringing in the scheme urgently. As a result, it has been possible to offset the proposed increase of a minimum ½p in the prices of ordinary standard loaves of 14 and 28 oz. which would otherwise have taken place on 25th March. The scheme is being worked out and will be operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on my behalf.
In order to ensure that bread prices are held at their existing levels, the Ministry of Agriculture will be commencing payments to bakers once the House have given the Bill its Second Reading. Estimates will be presented to the House in due course, and in the meantime it will be necessary to have recourse to the Contingencies Fund.
Taking milk, butter and bread together, the total food index saving is about 3½ per cent., which we believe to be a useful start to the food subsidy programme. Clause 1(3) of the Bill provides for the nature of the scheme, which is to be non-statutory except in so far as these payments are embodied in Clause 1. This, of course, was also the case when the Conservative Government introduced their subsidy to the sugar refiners under Section 57 of the Finance Act 1973.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I have followed the right hon. Lady's comments on the effect of the subsidies on the food price index, and I think that they will help. But will she explain what effect on the index will be brought about by the price increases of the nationalised industries—for example, the increased price of oil?

Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General dealt with that aspect in the Budget debate, when he pointed out that the probable increase in the price index by the end of the year from nationalised industry prices would be about 1½ to 2 per cent. I want to stress that these subsidies, if the House approves, will be introduced immediately and will give immediate relief to families that are hard pressed. The Conservative Government clearly indicated the necessity, as they saw it, to increase the prices of the nationalised industries. This was said by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) and


by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in the Budget debate.
The object of these subsidy payments is to reduce, prevent, or limit increases in food prices in the United Kingdom only. I make it clear that, under Clause 1(5), the subsidy must be repaid if the subsidised food is subsequently exported. The House will appreciate that it is important not to dislocate trade, and to satisfy both EEC regulations and to avoid any distortion of trade no subsidised foods will be exported without the subsidy being repaid.
The House will also want to know about the other possibilities for subsidies. I cannot at this stage give detailed information about complete discussions, because if I could it would only be proper for me to put them in Clause 1, and I have not been able to do that in the case of any food on which we have not been able to complete discussions. But we intend to use the basic criteria as in the existing cases, in that the food concerned shall be an essential basic food, one for which demand is relatively stable and relatively price inelastic, and one which looms large in the purchasing power or incomes of low-income families.
We also must seek as far as possible to subsidise only those foodstuffs for which mechanisms can be constructed relatively easily and without a great deal of bureaucratic procedures. We are exploring the possibilities in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and we shall bring specific proposals to the House as soon as possible.
It would be helpful to the House if I were to say something about those foods that we do not believe can be subsidised. The chief foods that we do not believe can be subsidised—although I shall say a word later about other ways in which we think their prices might be effectively restrained—are fresh meat, fresh fish and fresh fruit and vegetables. As I indicated to the House when speaking during the debate on the Gracious Speech, there would be grave difficulties about subsidising fresh meat. The reason why the difficulties are grave is partly the dependence in the United Kingdom not on a few exporters, but on a wide range of exporters and on a large number of outlets and butchers, which makes proper control of subsidy extremely difficult.
In addition, we believe and hope that the recently announced producer subsidy to beef and pig meat will go some way to assist in increasing supply, but we do not believe that the suitable way to do so for this product is by attempting to subsidise. The same is true of fresh fish. Here again the external factors so much determine supply. It would seem impossible to make a subsidy cost effective in respect of a commodity whose landings varied so much according to the weather.
Fresh fruit and vegetables are other difficult products for which to bring in subsidies, because of sharp seasonal variations and the different commodities, but there are ways in which we believe we can to some extent restrain prices of these goods other than by subsidy.

Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady is most anxious to restrain price increases, which, as she rightly said, are the concern of both sides of the House. I hope that she does not believe what she says about the measures that have been taken being adequate to deal with the problem of beef production. I say to her right hon. Friend sitting next to her, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that I hope that he will read in HANSARD what was said in the Adjournm ent debate. Acute concern has been expressed by farmers. This is not a party political point. It is known on both sides of the House that farmers' confidence in the industry is sadly lacking at the moment, and will be reflected in higher prices later in the year.

Mrs. Williams: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I should not have thought that my right hon. Friend had just introduced a couple of useful producer subsidies. It is strange that these should have got such a reception.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister of Agriculture must ask farmers about the slaughterings of calves. If a calf is slaughtered, one does not then have a two-year-old beast for beef 18 months later. The figures show what will happen in this regard.

Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend has introduced a calf subsidy. I recollect that shortly before the election there was a great deal of stir from farmers throughout the country which was met by a last minute concession on milk, a concession then described as totally inadequate.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: rose—

Mrs. Williams: I give may to the hon. Gentleman, who is the first Liberal Member to rise, but I fear that I shall keep the House late if I am continually interrupted.

Mr. Wainwright: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will always wish to be as frank as possible, but I should like her to be a little more specific about some of the foods for which she may use the powers she is seeking. I should particularly like to know more about the prospects for margarine, which is a matter of great importance to many people.

Mrs. Williams: That is a fair comment, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be most improper to speculate about the possibility of subsidising foodstuffs because of the consequences for the market of doing so. I promise the House that I shall come at the earliest possible opportunity to ask for the necessary orders and the House will have a full opportunity to discuss future proposals and raise related questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that assurance.

Mr. John Biffen: I appreciate that we are all under some constraints in this debate, but, reverting to the subject of obtaining fresh meat on the most advantageous terms, can the right hon. Lady in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the Minister of Agriculture, say whether she welcomes the prospect of a considerable amount of beef in this country from the Community bearing the compensatory payments which enable the Irish farmers, as far as one can judge, to offer beef around £16 per hundredweight?

Mrs. Williams: My understanding was that the purchases of United Kingdom beef into the intervention board were virtually non-existent. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this subject, he should do so with my right hon. Friend at a later stage, for it does not arise on Clause 1. I can hear the hon. Member being invited by practically everyone on my Front Bench to put down a Question. I am sure that if he did so, it would be answered.
Clause 2 gives power for a limited period to regulate by order particular food prices and the retail prices of other essential parts of the regular spending of low-income households. Power to regulate prices includes the power to do so by reference to cash or percentage margins. This power in Clause 2 is backed up by the power to require details of the regulated prices to be displayed in shops where the goods are sold in a specific place and manner.
The order will apply only until 31st March next year, subject to the power of the House to renew it for a further 12 months. The order regulating prices will be flexible enough to allow different provisions to be made for different trades and circumstances. I make it clear that we are seeking to control margins and prices over a relatively narrow range of products over and above those that are subsidised. It would certainly be the wish of the Government, as far as is possible, to reach agreement with the trade and manufacturers to lower the margins on those essential goods which appear every week in the shopping baskets of housewives and to allow the rest of the profit to be taken over less essential goods.
I said earlier, but there were a lot of interruptions at the time and hon. Members may not have heard, that it was hoped that manufacturers and the retail trade would agree to enter into a voluntary agreement with the Government on this subject. I should greatly welcome such an agreement and I should like here to express my thanks to those leading retailers who have taken the opportunity to reduce the margins that they are quoting on some of the most essential foodstuffs such as bread, butter and margarine. If we were able to come to such an agreement, we should wish not to use the statutory powers we are asking the House to give us. Because we believe there may be grounds for requiring the statutory powers at least to be retained as an ultimate sanction, we are asking the House. under Clause 2, to accept that we shall proceed with consultations to the best of our ability.
I come now to the display of prices in the shops. We recognise that there are great difficulties in setting a single price. I notice that the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner), who was Parliamentary Secretary


to the Ministry of Agriculture in the last administration has made this point forcibly to the House on an earlier occasion. Because there are difficulties about setting a single price, difficulties associated with the great range in the trade—from the efficient city centre supermarket to the small corner shop which has to cover a higher proportion of overheads—we believe that the proper thing to do is to set a range of prices with a maximum price.
The maximum price is required for subsidised goods and would also be required in the event of a voluntary agreement being reached with the trade on the basis of control over margins. We are proposing to discuss these matters in detail with the trade. We have already discussed them in considerable detail. We believe that this can be done. The powers in Clause 2 will be used in part in relation to foods attracting subsidy under Clause 1. As soon as the Bill reaches the statute book, we shall set maximum prices for subsidised foods.
In addition, we believe that it should be possible to give more information to consumers, not just in areas where there is an agreed or statutory maximum price, and the Government hone to discuss with the trade—which, I am pleased to say, is most co-operative in this matter—the extension of price marking in the clearest possible way. In addition, in Clause 4 we are taking powers to introduce unit pricing where appropriate, although we do not believe that unit pricing is appropriate across the whole field. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say more about that later. The House will recall that a Bill dealing with unit pricing was introduced by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) during the last Parliament.

Mr. Cormack: I am glad to see that provision in the Bill, but I am slightly puzzled. When my Bill was debated, it was thought necessary to have a much larger vehicle than there is in this much bigger Bill. Have the Government changed their mind? The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is now the Minister of State, argued forcefully in the last Parliament for wider powers and a more comprehensive Bill.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that we have been able to abbreviate the drafting. We are advised—possibly because the Bill is now a Government Bill—that the powers the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West sought will be adequately taken for the purposes that he and the Government wish to see served.
There are at present no legal requirements on any shops to display prices, arid there are three requirements to be met. First, the most appropriate form of marking on the individual goods where that is appropriate; secondly, marking on the shelves where that is appropriate; and, finally, the need for a list of maximum prices to be prominently displayed in the shop where it can he seen by the housewife. It is the housewife who must satisfy herself that no more than the maximum price is being charged.
I hope that we shall meet many of the difficulties that the trade foresaw at one time by a suggested range of prices, of which the maximum price would be the upper end of the range.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Does the right hon. Lady envisage that a different maximum price will be displayed in different shops varying from the small to the large, so that one will see displayed a price for bread which is different according to whether the shop is a supermarket or a corner shop?

Mrs. Williams: No. The whole purpose of the range is to meet the problem that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. At present, the maximum price for bread is 14½p for a standard loaf, apart from delivery charges. That would be the maximum price in all shops in all parts of the land. The lower end of the price range may be 1 1p or 12p for the same loaf. It is appropriate to give a range for this kind of product that will apply in large and efficient shops with a rapid turnover and in corner shops in the more rural parts of the country. The only way to deal with this is by a range of prices. Many of the questions which are being raised by hon. Gentleman are Committee points, that would be more appropriately raised in Committee.

Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: Will the right hon. Lady enlighten the House


as to how she would determine the lower end of this range?

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is certainly not at that end of the scale!

Mrs. Williams: The answer—and I should have thought the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) would know this better than most—is that it is not difficult to establish a price which is the fair price for the most efficient shop. That is the advice that I have received from some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the trade.

Mr. Gorst: rose—

Mrs. Williams: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. If there are to be any back-bench speeches in this debate at all, it will be inappropriate for me to continue to give way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady, but she appears to give the impression that she is under a misapprehension. Am I not right in thinking that the Government have proposed that the rule should be suspended and that there is no limit to the length of this debate? Therefore, there is no reason why she should not give way and take up as much time as she likes in explaining the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Whether or not the right hon. Lady wishes to give way is entirely within her own discretion.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is hoist with his own petard. If there is no limit to the debate, everybody may make his case in his own speech. Perhaps that is the appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Gorst: rose—

Mrs. Williams: I must invite the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to make his point in his speech. I turn to Clause 3—

Mr. Gorst: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) must

not remain on his feet if the right hon. Lady does not give way.

Mrs. Williams: I turn to Clause 3, which deals with the additional powers of the Price Commission. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this clause builds on the existing system of price control through the Price Commission and the Price Code. It confers certain additional powers on the Price Commission to prevent or restrict price increases in "exceptional circumstances".
Perhaps I should make clear how the clause arose. In paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 the Conservative Government took a power under which the Minister, after consultation with the Price Commission, could override the Price Code in exceptional circumstances. He could only override the code in exceptional circumstances by moving above it—in other words, the Minister had discretion to go above the code, but had no discretion to go below it. The Labour Government believe that, if there is to be a discretion of that kind for the Minister, it is only appropriate that it should work in both directions.
We say this for the straightforward reason that, if the code is in any way anomalous in certain cases, it may as easily be anomalous below the code as it may be above it. For example, it may be anomalous in cases where prices should be reduced as well as in cases where prices should be allowed to go above the code. In practice, as spokesmen for the Conservative Government made clear in the debates on the Counter-Inflation Bill, the circumstances regarded as likely to be exceptional would be only rarely used. We accept that Clause 3 should be applied only where circumstances are exceptional and that it will be only rarely used. I emphasise that the Labour Government believe that power should not operate in only one direction, but in both directions. This is the reason why Clause 3 has been introduced.
We also believe that it is important to recognise that the "exceptional circumstances" are always a source of disturbance or worry, and it is right and proper to indicate that there would be full consultation with any interests which felt themselves to be affected. That has been written into the Bill after consultation with industry.
It is also the case that the Secretary of State could not act without a recommendation from the Price Commission and that any action under Clause 3 would depend on the Price Commission's advice and on the Secretary of State's acceding to that advice after full consultation. I wish to make this point clear because there has been considerable misunderstanding about the terms of Clause 3. I ask the House to look at the clause closely in relation to paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of the Counter-Inflation Act, which will put the matter into its proper perspective. I notice that one hon. Member suggests that it makes it worse. He should have made that point to those who introduced the Counter-Inflation Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did ".] Very well. I accept that.
I turn now to Clause 5, which deals with a very different matter—the power to abolish the Pay Board. Clause 5 provides a power for the Secretary of State —in practice this would be the Secretary of State for Employment—by order to abolish the Pay Board and all its functions and the machinery of the Counter-Inflation Act associated with the board. In effect, the clause makes provision for removing the statutory pay controls at a date yet to be proposed.
I ask the House to note that the order would be contained in a statutory instrument to be laid in draft and to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. My right hon. Friend made this clear in his speech in the House on 18th March, and I do not wish to add to what he said. The intention, however, is that once this has happened, the Counter-Inflation Act, which at present applies both to the Pay Board and to the Price Commission, should be gradually unravelled. On the abolition of the Pay Board, the statutory controls of prices would remain in force and would be strengthened along the lines that I have indicated.
The order made under Clause 5(1) would make repeals of and amendments to provisions of the Counter-Inflation Act and any supplementary and transitional provisions which the Secretary of State for Employment thought necessary or expedient in connection with or in consequence of the abolition of the hoard. They would cover the requirement to have a code dealing with pay

as well as with prices, the power to require pre-notification of pay settlements, the powers to restrict pay and the associated penalties.
With regard to the timing, as the Secretary of State has said, he will be consulting both the TUC and the CBI in the course of discussions on methods of securing the orderly growth of incomes on a volurtary basis. There will be ample opportunity to debate the clause in Committee, and there will be a Minister from the Department of Employment present in the Committee so that there will he art opportunity for detailed questions to be put to him.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Before the right hon. Lady leaves Clause 5, will she explain why the clause is needed? She will recall that Section 4(2) of the Counter-Inflation Act reads:
The period for which this Part of this Act"—
that is, the part imposing pay controls—
is in force may at any time be terminated by Her Majesty by Order in Council.
Why do we need the clause?

Mrs. Williams: Because, being an extremely democratic party, we think that it is appropriate to adopt the affirmative procedure rather than an Order in Council. I should make it clear that one of the objections that my party had to the Counter-Inflation Act was its reliance on this kind of order without any debate in the House.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Lady will recall that the Counter-Inflation Act says that an order under subsection (3) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. Surely that was just as democratic as that which is proposed now.

Mrs. Williams: It is always pleasing to hear the hon. Member for Oswestry defending the Counter-Inflation Act, which was not one of his favourite Acts. We are giving the House exactly that opportunity to debate the abolition of the Pay Board.
I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that I have given detailed explanations of its powers. There is no doubt that it is concerned primarily with


methods of attempting to restrain inflation. I have no doubt that the Opposition will attempt to criticise the Bill and possibly to tear it to pieces. But in a situation of inflation of the kind facing the country it is not only foolish but irresponsible to adopt a wholly destructive attitude towards proposals intended to control prices.
The Opposition, when in Government, took little action of this kind, arguing that it was not possible to do so. I ask them to treat the Bill in a constructive manner and to attempt to assist those who are presently finding the constant rise in prices a daily horror. They should recognise that industry, which has legitimate points to make about investment and growth, will not be served by runaway inflation any more than anybody else in our community. I hope that they will also recognise that every one of us in his or her rôle as a producer also has a rôle as a consumer. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to do all that we can to put our economy straight again and to end the situation that has arisen over the past few years.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: This is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity of following the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. I am sure that the whole House congratulates her on assuming this appointment. As has been said of many other Ministers in this Government, we hope that she has an exceedingly happy and comparatively brief tenure of office.
Most of the right hon. Lady's remarks, although they were somewhat lengthy and did not answer all the questions put to her by my right hon. and hon. Friends, at least explained the Bill. However, there is no need to lecture us about our attitude to the Bill. We shall make our attitude clear to the measures that we believe are right and we shall make a constructive approach to any measures put before us.
The whole House will at least agree with the part of the right hon. Lady's speech where she mentioned the extreme importance of inflation and rising prices to everybody in the community. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House

are deeply disturbed about inflation and rising prices. I agree that it is the duty of hon. Members on both sides of the House to suggest ways in which it may be possible to deal with the problem of inflation, but I think that what will probably emerge from our discussions is that the right hon. Lady's proposals are not the right way to set about what she has in mind.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman put up rents.

Mr. Channon: If the right hon. Lady was allowed to proceed, I admit with some interruptions, perhaps I may be allowed to continue. However, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He had three years in Government to attempt to control inflation, but was not very successful. Indeed, hardly a day went by without there being a price rise on something—not halfpennies, but pennies, twopences and threepences.

Mr. Channon: I am just coming on to deal with action for dealing with rising prices and what this Government are proposing to do in this proposed legislation. It is common ground, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, that the problems of tackling inflation, which is rampant throughout the world, are extremely complicated. Indeed, no party in any portion of the globe has yet found the magic cure for inflation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Channon: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if the Houses wishes.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman increased rents.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has a very loud voice, but the intelligence of his contribution is not matched by its volume.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman increased rents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) made his intervention earlier. I should be grateful if he would not make interventions from a sedentary position.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman personally increased rents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not inviting the hon. Gentleman to interrupt.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman increased rents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If there were something intelligent to answer, I should attempt to do so. Perhaps I could move to a more rational criticism of the Bill. Of course, we all welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention and no doubt look forward to his serving on the Committee, which I am sure he is only too anxious to do.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I will not increase rents.

Mr. Channon: No.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Channon: I shall come to that in due course.
I think it is reasonable for the House to look at the whole question of prices and, indeed, at the action of this Government in introducing the Bill to deal with the problem as they see it.
The right hon. Lady has been designated by the Prime Minister as the focal point of action against prices generally. That is the responsibility that she has been given, as we were told in answer to questions a short while ago. We are therefore entitled to look to the right hon. Lady and her Department—[Interruption.]—for action on the whole prices front. The Government collectively have a responsibility in the matter, but the right hon. Lady is the focal point for action. If the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) has something to say, I shall give way.

Mr. Dan Jones: When the hon. Gentleman said that action against prices was the responsibility of my right hon. Friend and her Department, I added "with the assistance of this House" because I have evidence of gross profiteering which I intend to put to the House to assist my right hon. Friend and her Department in their task. I hope that if

hon. Gentlemen opposite have similar evidence they will put it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Channon: I have no doubt that the House is eagerly awaiting the hon. Gentleman's speech. Perhaps I can get on with mine and leave the hon. Gentleman to tell us later of the problems that he wishes to raise.
Everyone agrees that at a time of record increases in world prices it is essential for all hon. Members to try to protect those who are worst off in our community. The Conservative Government did so in a variety of measures which hon. Members generally welcomed. The Conservative administration helped by increasing pensions. The right hon. Lady talked a great deal about the increase in prices since the 1970 election, but she failed to say that both earnings and pensions were considerably higher than any increases in prices during the last three and a half years. I should have made that point to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) had he stayed to hear the remainder of my speech.
The Conservative Government increased pensions by 55 per cent., and for the first time introduced an annual review of pensions. In addition, they paid the £10 Christmas bonus, started the Family Income Supplement scheme and introduced a national system of rent rebates and allowances. If I am challenged about rents, my reply is that until the previous Conservative Government took the action they did only 40 per cent. of local authorities had a rent rebate scheme, and many of those schemes were wholly inadequate. No private tenant had any protection against increasing rents until we introduced our system of rent allowances. Those are just some of the measures taken by the Conservative Government during their period of office.
The Bill represents the action that the Government have so far deemed it appropriate to take to deal with prices. No doubt the right hon. Lady will in due course tell us about the proposed changes in the Price Code. I hope that when her consultations are complete the right hon. Lady will inform the House of the changes that she proposes to make. The right hon. Lady is engaged in this exercise of keeping down prices, but, bearing


in mind the actions of the Government as a whole, I think it is right to ask whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. It is not only the right hon. Lady who is dealing with prices. The Bill has many points of dubious value, and I think that one is entitled to consider the actions of the Government as a whole.
What have the Government done about prices—rather than spoken about what they would do—during the five weeks or so that they have been in office? The Bill provides for the possibility of £700 million for food subsidies to be distributed indiscriminately, although the right hon. Lady is trying to concentrate help on the foods that figure in the budgets of pensioners and those who are worst off. Where will the money come from? It will not appear out of the air as if by magic. The Chancellor has chosen to raise the money in a number of ways, and when somebody sets out to tackle the problem of prices he ought to consider the effect of the Budget on prices.
What have the Government done to raise the revenue to pay for these food subsidies? First—this is a small point but not unimportant—they have raised VAT on sweets, chocolates and ice-creams, for example, which are foods.

Mr. Dan Jones: That is not a bad idea.

Mr. Channon: I know that argument, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that the foods affected include yoghourt—which is a health food—quick-frozen orange juice, chocolate biscuits and ice-cream? All these items represent a substantial part—not an enormous amount; I do not want to overstate the case—of the budgets of the worst off. They are not all luxury foods and the extent of VAT here has gone much wider than people imagine.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the less well off members of the community should be satisfied with being fed with ice-cream and crisps? I have worked during the last three years in Hackney and have seen some of the worst-off members of society. I saw their conditions deteriorate as a result of his Government's actions. It is an insult to

say that the present Government are cutting people's standards.

Mr. Channon: That shows the unwisdom of giving way. I am making a whole case and the hon. Gentleman interrupts me on what I said was only a small point. His imputations are untrue. I am coming to the totality of the price increases imposed by this Government, who, on the one hand, pretend to hold down prices with food subsidies because they think it is popular and will help them to win an election, while, on the other hand, they put up prices in the Budget.
VAT was the first item. The second, which is very important and has a great indirect effect on many budgets and a direct effect on many others is the petrol tax, which will raise £150 million. That hits the private motorist and will work its way through the economy in many other ways. I read my opponent's election address in the General Election and those of a number of other hon. Members. There were few references in them to their intention to put up the prices of tobacco, drink and betting to pay for some of these other things. They have had to raise extra taxation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has been out while I have been referring to him, and I do not see why I should be subjected to constant interruptions now.
To raise the £600 million or so that the rieht hon. Lady will spend on food subsidies, which will operate in what I shall show will be a wholly indiscriminate way and will be of very little help to those on low incomes, the Government have raised all these other items. That is the price for their dogmatic and doctrinaire insistence on proceeding in this way.
Apart from the tax increases on which the Chancellor freely decided, electricity prices will rise 30 per cent. from August.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They would have done anyway.

Mr. Channon: This Government have decided to adopt that course, which may be right or wrong. The price of industrial coal—

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that, at least in the West Midlands,


people are being charged for electricity on meter readings taken as from 1st May? So people are paying these increases at once.

Mr. Channon: That reinforces my point that we must consider the totality of the effects on retail prices.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I can claim to know something about the electricity supply industry. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that if his party had remained in power they would have continued indefinitely with the prevailing enormous electricity subsidies? If so, that contradicts what one of his colleagues said in the House before the General Election.

Mr. Channon: I am not saying that. If I were allowed to continue, that would become clear from my remarks. I am merely pointing out that the cost of electricity will have a very great effect on people's budgets, as will the extra cost of coal and of rail fares. It will affect my constituents very much. I expect that it will greatly affect the right hon. Lady's constituents when rail fares rise by 12 per cent. There is the extra cost of postal service and telecommunications charges. All these costs will rise during this year.
When one looks at what the Government are proposing and the totality of the policy in relation to prices, one must ask what will be the effect on prices—before taking any account of inflation. The effect on the retail price index, as we have been told in answers by the Paymaster-General, is that the indirect tax increases will put up the retail price index by 1¾ per cent. and the higher nationalised industry charges will put it up by 2 per cent., making a total of 3¾ per cent. The right hon. Gentleman then adopts some offsetting savings which he says will bring down the index to show an increase of 1½ per cent.
That is the increase in prices which is the direct responsibility of the present Government since they came to office. It is no use pretending that the food subsidies which are to come into force will do anything significant to outweigh the effects of the price increases that I have outlined.
I now deal with one or two of the subsidies which the right hon. Lady has announced in the past. I entirely accept that she cannot speculate as to what

other subsidies she might come forward with. Obviously, that would be an unreasonable thing for the House to expect her to do. First, on the question of milk, the right hon. Lady was saying that the cost would be £127 million. But the total cost of the milk subsidy this year, given in an answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) today, will be £275 million. I do not think that I can be seriously challenged on that figure. If I am wrong, I should be grateful if I were challenged, because it is a very important point. Out of the £550 million that the right hon. Lady will have for food subsidies this year, £275 million is to be spent on milk alone.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, that is wrong. I gave the figure of £127 million as the price of the additional subsidy on milk because the figure of £500 million is the figure of additional subsidies. The other £200 million, making a total figure of £700 million in the Bill, is accounted for by existing subsidies introduced by the hon. Gentleman's administration.

Mr. Channon: So, the reason that the right hon. Lady gave to the House for having £700 million in the Bill was so that she had room for manoeuvre, but she is now saying that that is all taken up by the subsidies already in existence. A great deal of it must be. If £127 million is the extra milk subsidy that she is introducing out of her £500 million and the total cost is £275 million, unless my mathematics are dottier than I thought, that is £148 million of her £200 million gone straight away. Out of the £700 million, £275 million goes on milk.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is important for this point to be made clear. The existing subsidies, when the present administration took office, on milk and butter amounted in all to a little under £200 million. That £200 million, therefore, is part of the £700 million maximum in the Bill. That leaves us about £500 million, or a little more, for new subsidies. Out of the £500 million, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that £127 million will go for milk. In addition, £43 million will go for butter, of which part is taken account of by the old subsidy. Finally, there will be an additional £21 million for bread. Therefore, on the basis of subsidy schemes already


announced to the House, there is about £300 million left to be distributed. I hope that that information is helpful to the House.

Mr. Channon: It is helpful that we should get these facts right. If I have understood the right hon. Lady correctly, out of the £700 million, therefore, £275 million will be spent on the milk subsidy, and that is 50 per cent. I hope that the House realises that. If it is not 50 per cent., I only wish that the parliamentary answer had not said so.
The estimated expenditure in 1974–75, in millions of pounds, is milk 275, proportion of total allocation 50 per cent.; bread 17, proportion of total allocation 3·1 per cent.; and butter 43, proportion of total allocation 7·8 per cent. That is the answer I have been given by the Minister, and I am sure that it is accurate. I think I am therefore right in what I say. The exact proportion is irrelevant, but my point is that in all this great fanfare of food subsidies totalling £700 million, £275 million of that will go on milk. But what will be the effect? First, it has been estimated that there will be an increase in demand for milk of 30 million gallons a year. The total effect of the subsidies on milk, butter and bread as they have been announced are as I shall explain. In the last quarter for which figures are available the consumption of milk was 4·81 pints per person per week. Therefore, the total saving to the average person will be 4·8p per week. To achieve that the Secretary of State will incur expenditure of £275 million.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am sorry but the hon. Member is not quite right.

Mr. Channon: The consumption figure is 4·81 pints per person per week, and the Secretary of State is subsidising it to the extent explained. That works out to 4·8p per person per week. That is roughly correct if not exact, but no doubt the Minister who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong.
I estimate that the bread subsidy will save the average person approximately 1p per week. The butter subsidy will save 2p per person per week, and the consumption figures there are easily checked. That is the extent of the subsidies which have so far been announced by the Secre-

tary of State. Today a new application for a bread price increase was forecast in The Times. What is the Secretary of State's position on that? Will she keep the price of bread down to the level at which it is pegged? What will happen if another application for a bread price increase, as The Times says, is on the way? Will it be her policy to allow it or does she propose to subsidise bread further? I have seen estimates and heard from people who are knowledgeable on the topic and it seems that the price of breads subsidies might have to rise to a £100 million a year if the price of bread is to be held during the course of this year The Secretary of State should tell the House the implications of her policy on bread.
This vast expenditure of public money is being poured away to give very little help to the ordinary man in the street but will require the maximum amount of taxation to provide it. What is to be the future of the policy? What will happen next year? Is the Secretary of State proposing food subsidies in perpetuity in this way at this level? Will the figure next year be £700 million or will it be £1,000 million? The Secretary of State has two choices. Is her policy to be a permanent feature? If it is, does she realise that apart from the other consequences there will probably have to be a vast increase in taxation to pay for it? If it is not to be permanent, what will be the effects on the consumer when the subsidies are removed? By that time the real price levels will have risen considerably. It is important for everyone to know the long-term consequences of the Secretary of State's proposals.
Some extremely dangerous propositions are advanced by the right hon. Lady in the Bill. I believe that she said that she will try to subsidise products the demand for which is not elastic. That must be right, for otherwise she will very much affect consumption, and there will he shortages of food in the shops, because there will not be sufficient supplies to meet the extra demand artificially created.
I do not know the right hon. Lady's intentions with regard to cheese. There are rumours that she may subsidise it. What will happen to it if she does? I hope that there is no question of her subsidising foreign cheese. That would be


ludicrous. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) on that. We shall make common cause if camembert and brie are subsidised. [Interruption.] I am speaking of subsidisation; I am not talking of stopping anyone from eating it.
There is a serious point here. If the right hon. Lady is contemplating the subsidisation of English cheese alone, she will find herself in great difficulties, because the consumption of liquid milk is going up and its production is going down. There will certainly be a shortage of cheese if an attempt is made to subsidise it.
I am told that the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will open a new cheese factory in Devon just after Easter, although already the factory is having great difficulty in obtaining sufficient liquid milk to get its production going. because there is a shortage. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why? "] What I am saying is that this is an example of what may happen if the Government pursue a policy of indiscriminate subsidies which create shortages, because the demand is increased but not the supply. That is inevitable unless a subsidy policy is carried out very carefully.

Mr. Gorst: Could not the position be even more difficult, because if Danish bacon is one of the foods on the right hon. Lady's list we may find ourselves with a subsidy on that but nothing on Danish cheese, on the basis of my hon. Friend's argument, and that might create difficulty in our relations with Denmark, not to say with the rest of the Common Market?

Mr. Channon: That is an important point. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek an opportunity in Committee to deal with it.
If hon. Members say that we are against subsidies, it is only fair to reply that I believe that there are many better ways of spending £700 million than on indiscriminate food subsidies. I have already dealt with a number of measures the Conservative Government took over the years, which had a considerable effect. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. If he wants me to read them all out again, I shall do so,

but in the interests of the House I shall try not to be provoked by him.
What could be done to help those who need help in a far better way than by indiscriminate use of food subsidies on the proposed scale? One answer is to raise family allowances and to give a family allowance for the first child. That might cost £350 million a year.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Why was that not done during the hon. Gentleman's party's three and a half years in office? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on the eve of the 1970 election there was made from the Front Bench at which he now stands an explicit Conservative pledge to introduce family allowances on a much more generous scale?

Mr. Channon: What I am trying to tell the House is that there are better ways of spending the £700 million than that which the Government have proposed. I had understood from the speeches of members of the Liberal Party that that was a point of view they shared. I do not think that it is worth fighting the battles of the past on this occasion. The Conservative Government had a record in the social services of which any party could be proud. Any objective person who looks at the tenure of office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) would accept that to be true. If we are to spend large sums of money we could make a good start on disability income, for example, with £340 million, which is under half of what the right hon. Lady is proposing to spend on food subsidies.
The House is being asked to make a choice. The right hon. Lady asks the House to agree to spend £700 million in the way that she has described. I claim that if we are to spend that amount of money there are many other ways of doing so that would not necessarily involve means-testing but which would give direct help to those who most need it in a far less indiscriminate way than that which the right hon. Lady proposes. That is the argument against indiscriminate food subsidies.
The bread subsidy, if it is continued for a long time, will have a curious consequence on the pattern of buying in the bread industry. The totality of the measures that the Government are taking


would also have curious consequences. It is extremely important, as the right hon. Lady recognised in her opening remarks, to realise the importance of investment and of saving. At present such matters are crucial.
When we consider the prospects for small shopkeepers—namely, their fuel costs going up as well as many other costs—the right hon. Lady must be extremely careful when she squeezes their margins still further not to squeeze them out altogether. To do so would have serious implications. There would be the short-term implications for those involved, but in the longer term there would be serious implications for the consumers and the housewives. It is extremely important that we should do what we can to preserve the small shopkeeper at what is an extremely difficult time.
The effect of subsidies when applied indiscriminately will be to distort. For example, when there is a fixed maximum price on one item it may be that there will be a total change in demand and a change in the prices of other items. If the policy of subsidising is continued, we shall run the risk that goods will be removed from the shelves. If the Government increase demand and do nothing to supply there may well not be some goods on the shelves.
What will happen when the subsidies are lifted? That is a crucial matter unless the Government envisage having them in perpetuity. There are many other features of the Bill that must be considered. Clauses 2 and 3 provide for some remarkable powers.
I understand that the right hon. Lady is engaged in discussions about the Price Code. I hope that she will report fully to the House when the opportunity comes. I imagine that she will seek to do so when her main proposals for revising the Price Code are complete. We all agree with her about the need for detailed consultations on that matter and we welcome her statement that there will be detailed consultations with those concerned before major changes in the Price Code take place.
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is able to tell us about the representations that have been made to her about the 10 per cent. gross margin

reduction on net margins and the action that she proposes to take following the representations that have been made to her. It is interesting, in view of what some Government hon. Members were saying throughout the election, to note that the work of the Price Commission has been so triumphantly vindicated by the present Government. As we all know, the Price Commission was set up by the previous Government. In its first report it showed conclusively how many hundreds of millions of pounds it had saved by examining price increases.
Clause 3 seems unnecessary. It provides that if the Price Commission persuades the Secretary of State that a trader has been operating lawfully under the Price Code but has increased his price or charge and there are exceptional circumstances that are totally undefined, the Secretary of State can give directions that empower the Price Commission to exercise its powers as if the trader had been acting in breach of the code. That strikes me as an astonishing proposition. First, the right hon. Lady may give directions not only in regard to price increases in the future, but to price increases that have been in operation for any length of time. Indeed, it could apply to increases made before the introduction of the Bill. Is that a reasonable proposition?
The right hon. Lady is taking wide and retroactive powers. If she does not need them, she could deal with any problems by changing the Price Code. I can only conclude that she needs Clause 3 because she foresees a possible situation in which she may need to use these powers retrospectively. I hope that she has no such intention, but if she has no such intention, what is the need for Clause 3?
I give one example. One can have a perfectly lawful situation in which a price rise for a fabric is authorised and implemented. The woven fabric would reflect the increased price. The price of the garment made from the fabric would be increased. All this would be perfectly legal. But the right hon. Lady could then introduce an order to reduce the price of the fabric. The price would then become illegal. All along the line there would be a retrospective change for people who had been acting in perfectly good faith. I hope that the right hon.


Lady will consider in Committee the provisions of Clause 3 very carefully. We shall certainly do so.
We shall also have to have careful assurances about the use of Clause 2. The right hon. Lady is taking sweeping draconian powers by order to
regulate the prices to be charged for the sale of food of any description…
and also
…for the sale by retail of such other goods…which…may be so specified;
I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us what she has in mind here.
These powers being taken by the right hon. Lady could literally bankrupt people if they were used inflexibly and unreasonably. I do not pretend that she intends or wishes to bankrupt people, but she is taking very wide powers and Parliament is entitled to ask how they are to be exercised and to write in safeguards to protect people from being dealt with in a harsh or unreasonable way by the use of such powers.
I do not think that these powers are necessary in the interests of consumers. There is no mention of quality in the Bill. The right hon. Lady is to regulate prices, but she does not say what the quality of the goods is to be. The consumers may well suffer if she decides to use Clause 2 in an unreasonable way. We were grateful to hear that she intends to use these powers rarely and hopes for voluntary agreements. Nevertheless, these powers exist, and one of the greatest services one can do for the consumers is to ensure that they have reasonable choice through a wide range of outlets.
If the right hon. Lady were to use some of these powers in a retroactive way, there would be great difficulties. She would find that, in the end, they would act to the disadvantage of the consumers, who would find their choice restricted. We shall want to hear more about the way in which she is to operate the system of maximum prices and the range of prices. As the right hon. Lady pointed out, the same prices cannot be expected in the little shop on the corner as in the supermarket. We shall have to ask her to give us a more detailed description of what she has in mind so that we know what is proposed and how both small shopkeepers and consumers are to be safeguarded.
In the long run, as the pattern of demand is distorted, the consumers themselves will be badly affected by these changes. The Bill is an extremely blunt instrument with wide powers. It can deal with every shop, but each shop has its own trading pattern, and that pattern may well be totally changed if the right hon. Lady uses some of the powers in the Bill.
For example, I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has in mind subsidising eggs or potatoes. I do not expect an answer tonight, but how would she operate such a subsidy? Many eggs and potatoes are sold direct to the consumers and do not go through the shops at all. There is a whole host of difficulties, which no doubt the right hon. Lady is aware of, on which we are entitled to have explanations.
Clause 4 relates to price marking. The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) many thanks for his work in this matter over a number of years. We shall want more information on how unit marking will be carried out. The right hon. Lady says that it will not be on too wide a scale, but it will be interesting to know exactly how it will be done. Is it to be done by manufacturers or retailers? How will the system of unit marking be worked? I hope that in Committee there will he an explanation of subsection 2(d) which contains wide powers.
Finally, I come to a moment of farce, relating to the introduction of Clause 5. As my hon. Friends have shown, this clause is totally unnecessary. It is some-what ludicrous to introduce in a Bill called the Prices Bill power to abolish the Pay Board. There are different views in the House about the working of the Pay Board, but I should have thought that many Members would realise that the likely abolition of the Pay Board is scarcely likely, in the short term, to do a great deal towards helping with prices.
We shall be interested to hear in Committee what are the criteria which the Government are to adopt before deciding whether to put forward a draft order that would enable the House to abolish the Pay Board. Why is the Secretary of State not taking action on this matter now rather than later? What will be the considerations that will lead him to take the course referred to in Clause 5?
The House knows that statutory control of wages was not welcomed by the Conservative Government. [Laughter.] I recall that hon. Members opposite who are now laughing supported their own Government when they introduced something not dissimilar a few years ago. The House knows that statutory control of wages was not welcomed by the Conservative Government. It was adopted because it was thought to be necessary by that Government at the time, unpalatable though it was.
At present we presume that the statutory arrangements are to continue. We have been told by the right hon. Lady that the law of the land continues, that phase 3 is in operation and that the work of the Pay Board goes on. I understand that to be the present policy of the Labour Government, although they want voluntary arrangements.
Do they intend to keep the Pay Board until voluntary arrangements have been completely worked out? What are their proposals and their timing for abolition of the Pay Board? No doubt at present the Pay Board is an essential feature in the Government's economic strategy. It will be interesting to learn what they have in mind.
The reason for including this unnecessary Clause 5 is to give a sop to the Left-wing of the Labour Party so it would believe that something was being done—instead of the charade which is taking piace. The real criticism of the Government is that they fought the last election on prices—admittedly there were a few disclaiming words about world prices, although little was made of that. The general impression was given that it was the Tory Party that was responsible for price increases. [Interruption.] Let Labour Members cheer now. The impression given was that all would be well when the Socialists took office and that when they walked in, prices would go down, as if by a miracle.
Hon. Members who read the Daily Mirror will see what has happened to the shopping basket in the last month since Labour has been in power. Faced with the reality of power, faced with the Budget and faced with the bill, the action which the Labour Party has chosen to take will put prices up rather than bring them down.
The Government are going through a charade, a miserable attempt to pretend that the problems of inflation can be masked by a presumably temporary period of rigid control, by the sweeping use of these powers and indiscriminate food subsidies which will provide very little help indeed to those whom they are designed to help, but who are being clobbered in many other ways.
At a time when burdens are being placed on industry by way of increased raw material and fuel costs, higher national insurance payments, increased postage rates, higher prices for all these things—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And Guinness!

Mr. Channon: That is not my fault: it is the hon. Member's.
The effect of all of this on the small man will be bad. Unless the powers contained in the Bill are used sparingly, the effect of the Bill could be serious for the small shopkeeper and the food industry alike. Already we are told that investment in the food industry will be cut sharply, some people say by as much as 50 per cent. The long-term effect of that will be that the consumer will suffer.
Those who heard the debate earlier today about the beef situation will know how the consumer will suffer unless something is done. The Bill needs serious amendment. In Committee my hon. Friends and I will give it the most careful scrutiny to ensure that the plans that we consider to be so necessary are adopted. The Government's policy is a charade. It will not reduce prices. The Government are actively engaged in increasing prices. I believe that the country has already seen through that charade.

9.53 p.m.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) regards this Bill as a sop to certain hon. Members sitting on the Labour benches. It was referred to earlier by those sitting on the Opposition benches as being an important item of legislation. In introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend has spoken of the frightening forecasts arrived at by various institutes concerning the inflationary period we are going through. The figures mean that


we may reach levels of inflation when the situation will become totally out of hand. Whatever can be done to restrain prices must be done, and done quickly. Speed is of the essence. My right hon. Friend has brought to her job the integrity and application which the House have come to expect of her.
I see the Bill falling into two distinct categories. The first is that part which gives power to the Secretary of State and the Price Commission to regulate prices. The other category is that which gives protection to consumers. In recent years we have seen the consumer interest become of paramount importance. Consumers have become a central issue in a way that could never have happened 10 or even five years ago. It is this part of the Bill, which acknowledges that the consumer is not a walking computer with a slide-rule mind, upon which I particularly want to dwell.
No one can deny that the housewife is the big spender. But I see this Bill not merely as a housewife's charter; it is something of a consumers' charter. It acknowledges that we are all consumers, and that the big spender, the housewife, acts on behalf of all consumers for whom she provides. It also acknowledges that all have the same right to protection, the need to know, and the right to be informed so they may obtain the best value for money.
Clause 2 provides for the regulation of other basic household necessities. I am curious about those words "certain other basic household necessities". A basic necessity in one household is not a basic necessity in another. What is the intention of the Bill? It leaves a great deal to the imagination. How will a basic necessity be determined and who will determine it?
I am concerned mainly with Clauses 4 and 6 and the schedule. Clause 4 is a protectionist clause and gives power to require the price per unit to be shown as matter of routine for any particular commodity that is being retailed. I hope that we shall not look upon the clause as a panacea for all ills and the answer to every consumer problem. It is not as easy as that.
Various methods may be appropriate in different circumstances, just as various methods of marking may be appropriate

in different kinds of retailing. My right hon. Friend mentioned three methods. The first is the obvious one of labelling individual items. That method can be adopted only by large supermarkets and large chain stores. Then there is the shelf method, which can be used by medium-sized stores. The best method for the corner shop is the display of lists where retail foods are on sale.
The hon. Member for Southend, West spoke about corner shops. There is no doubt that a case for exemption can be made on behalf of the small retailer. It has been suggested that the criteria should be based on the turnover of the business, and that if the turnover falls below a certain level the retailer should be exempt from unit pricing. I do not go along with that idea, and I hope that the Government will not take that view.
The hon. Member for Southend, West referred to the value of neighbourhood shops, and I agree with him. These retailers have always performed a valuable social function, and I want them to continue to thrive and to receive as much assistance and advice as possible. If they were to be exempted it would mean that consumers with limited mobility would be denied the protection of this legislation. It is no consolation to the elderly invalids and working housewives to be told, as they were by the previous administration, that if they shop around they can do better. To say that if they shopped in a larger store they would be able to get a better bargain is simply to except sections of the community from this legislation, and deny the advice and assistance given to the rest of the community.
I have said that unit pricing is not a total answer. It has its limitations and may not be as valuable as is the alternative method of specifying standard quantities, which might be the most valuable piece of armament in protective legislation of this nature. Here I wish to speak for the environmentalists. We should look carefully at the standardisation of packets and containers. We might do a lot worse than look at the experience of other countries in which standardised containers have assisted enormously in environmental problems by making possible the recycling of domestic waste. Canada is a case in point where the


authorities have carried out recycling of domestic waste with great success because of a form of standardisation.
I turn to the question of the cost of marking. It is not clear who will be responsible for these costs.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Prices Bill and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Golding.]

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 31.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, B. T.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bates, Alf
Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourley, Harry
Moyle, Roland


Bennett, A. F. (Stockport, N.)
Graham, Ted
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Grant John (Islington, C.)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
O'Malley, Brian


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hardy, Peter
Orbach, Maurice


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Proven)
Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S.&amp; Sh'ditch)
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Buchanan, Richard(G'gow, Springbrn)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)
Pavitt, Laurie


Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey,WoodGreen)
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Glles


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Colin
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cocks, Michael
Janner, Greviile
Reid, George


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Cox, Thomas
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull,W.)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham,G. (Islington,S&amp;F'sb'ry)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Selby, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n,N.E.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (CityofW'minsterP'ton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Silverman, Julius


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Snape, P. C.


Edelman, Maurice
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)


Ellis, J. (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Evans, J. (Newton)
MacLennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, H.(St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Flannery, Martin
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mayhew, Christopher(G'wh,W'wch,E)
Tuck, Raphael


Foot, Michael, Rt. Hn.
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)




Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Woof, Robert


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Watt, Hamish
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley(H't'd&amp;St'ge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)
Mr. John Golding and


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Whitlock, William
Woodall, Alec






NOES



Beith, Alan
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bell, Ronald
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Steel, David


Biffen, John
Molyneaux, James
Waddington, David


Budgen, Nick
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Cormack, Patrick
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


Crouch, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Pardoe, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Gorst, John
Redmond, Robert



Gow, I. R. E. (Eastbourne)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hawkins, Paul
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Michael Shersby.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sims, Roger



Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRICES BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Miss Boothroyd: The point I was about to make was on costing for unit marking or, more to the point, who would be responsible for costing. It does not seem to be mentioned in the Bill. I take it that the cost will fall on the retailer. No doubt my right hon. Friend has considered this and other suggestions.
It has been suggested that the cost of unit pricing can be inflationary. The calculations by one large supermarket group, Fine Fare, show that the simplest equipment to mark goods in its stores would cost about £150,000. It also made the point that the labour content of its store operations would be increased by 16 per cent. and that this would mean a wage cost of over £2 million a year. Those are sizeable sums.
I have other figures in which the House might be interested. They come from the United States where unit pricing is not a statutory requirement, but where some marketing chains have introduced it.
Kroger, a large chain, carried out a study and reported that it cost one-tenth per cent. of gross sales. In other words, it amounts to roughly 10 per cent. of net profit. Kroger says that while that may sound steep, it is not so high as some food men had expected.
Kroger further claims, as do several other chains—I quote from "Business-week"—that

they can absorb the added cost without passing it on to the consumer".
The chairman of Safeways Stores in the United States in a publication entitled "Consumerism"—what a ghastly word!—"Exciting Trend or Exaggerated Problems", referred to costs and reported:
Initially there was concern lest it prove a costly drain on profits. These fears proved groundless. In fact, we now feel that the system of unit pricing may now be making an overall contribution to profits. We also find operating efficiencies resulting from the system, such as fewer out of stocks, less labour for re-ordering, less labour for producing price tags and tagging shelves and more accurate pricing.
It may be that the firms I have quoted have the assistance of computers which would indeed assist in keeping expenses to a minimum. Such assistance may not be available to industry here.
I hope that the Government have made some estimate of the expenditure involved and that we shall hear about it in Committee. I hope that we shall also hear about measures to prevent these costs being passed on to the consumer and making the legislation counter-productive to what we are attempting to achieve. In recent years, Parliament has imposed extra work on the Weights and Measures Inspectorate, and when these regulations finally emerge—this is according to Clause 6—it will be left to the inspectorate to see that the legislation is properly enforced and carried out. Without that enforcement, the legislation will have no effect whatsoever.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a severe shortage of weights and measures inspectors in many parts of the country. In my constituency there are a chief inspector, a deputy and three


others, a total of five qualified staff—exactly the same number as there were 25 years ago. In spite of local government boundaries having been changed, recruiting has not been increased and the strength has not been added to. The number of staff is the same in ratio to population and the area covered. It would be interesting to learn whether

consultations have taken place to establish the capacity of the inspectorate to deal with the work load that is involved in this legislation.
My remarks have not been a criticism but have, I hope, been helpful. I hope, too, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that it will have a speedy transition through Committee.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. John E. M. Moore: I trust that my initial remarks will illustrate that I have already acquired the first art of a parliamentarian, and that is patience. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) will not take it as an unnecessary discourtesy if I do not refer to her speech.
As is customary in the House, I should like first to mention something about my constituency. I do so with some difficulty. I have listened to or read about 81 maiden speeches, and I find that maiden speeches in this House make the British Travel Association's recommendations seem somewhat limited.
We have a rather beautiful country. Proudly representing as I do the urban constituency of Croydon, Central I am somewhat at a loss to compete with the Pentland Hills and one or two other little delicacies. However, recognising that one occasionally owes certain courtesies to the other side, I mention John Ruskin, and I trust the House will understand the pride that I have in Ruskin's recognition of the effect that Croydon had on his career.
He said in 1885 how important Croydon was in his formative years, and in talking about Croydon itself he said:
Things modest, humble and pure in peace, under the low red roofs of Croydon, and by the cress set rivulets in which the sand danced and minnows darted above the springs of Wandle.
I trust that those hon. Members who have been in Croydon recently find some recognition of the borough.
The incredible explosion that we have seen in Croydon, the excitement of an urban revolution, is based upon a town with more than 1,000 years of history, and to that extent, though it is called by some a mini-Manhattan, the greater humanity of it than perhaps exists in the other Manhattan might have some resemblance to its history and its historical connections.
I shall endeavour to be brief, but there are one or two points that I should men-

tion about Croydon and about the people there. Two points are germane to my constituency. The first is in relation to its age. Despite the right hon. Lady's statement earlier in the debate, pensioners form 17 per cent. of the national population according to the latest census statistics. In Croydon, showing the virility of our young community, they form only 13 per cent.
On housing—and I make this point to indicate clearly the recognition that I and many hon. Members on this side have of housing problems—in the nation generally 35 per cent. of the people live in council apartments or houses, whereas in the Croydon, Central constituency that I am proud to represent, the figure is 42 per cent.—in excess of the figure for owner-occupiers.
I would crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to mention a point which is not strictly relevant to the debate but is vitally important to my constituency—the Channel Tunnel. Early decision-making is absolutely important, especially in relation to the awful blight which has been caused to many of my constituents.
I would pay tribue to the previous Member for my constituency, Sir Richard Thompson, who served the House well for more than 20 years, representing in essence the constituency that I now have the privilege to serve. I would comment on his generosity, his kindness, his constant civility and the tremendous help he gave not only to me but, I am sure, to his constituents throughout his years.
I should like to turn, less controversially than some other hon. Members, to the subject of the debate—food. Our national debate on this subject lacks a sense of proportion. The noted economist Paul Bareau quoted figures recently showing that our gross national expenditure last year on food was £9,000 million, while on tobacco and drink it was £6,000 million. Our national debate is pervaded by a terrible sense of immorality. We are so conscious of the proportions in relation to food, but when we discuss this sort of figure in, for example, the Budget Estimates, we find that the wealth area taxes—surtax, capital gains and death duties—account for only 3·9 per cent of


the Estimates for 174–75, whereas the revenue from tobacco and drink alone accounts for 10·3 per cent.
A this early juncture in my hopefully lengthy parliamentary career I should like to make a small secondary comment about food. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and no less a figure than the Chancellor of the Exchequer have created a fallacious assumption in the minds of many hon. Members. In the discussion of parities, the supposition behind their attack on the floating pound was that it had affected our food prices very unpleasantly. This supposition was thrown out, as most such suppositions are, in very large terms. I felt it necessary to do some detailed examination, since we have all come incorrectly to accept the statement that the weighted devaluation of about 17 to 18 per cent. in sterling terms was responsible for a major increase in the price of our food.
Cereals are at the base of the food price pyramid. I analysed the importation into the United Kingdom of cereals and cereal preparations throughout 1973 and found that over 70 per cent. came from North America, from the United States and Canada. One does not have to go far into the records to check that the rate of exchange between sterling and the dollar between June 1970 and April 1974 remained completely unchanged. The Canadian dollar has been revalued by about 6 per cent. Putting all these figures together, one sees that on 70 per cent. of our imported cereals there was P devaluation effect of only 2·2 per cent.
My main criticism of the tenor of this debate here and outside is that we have adopted an extraordinarily parochial attitude, what I would call a very selfish attitude as an affluent society. We are looking at tactical means of correcting a problem which requires great strategic thought. The events of the last few years have given us the impression that food price changes as well as raw commodity price changes are a very sudden, special and unusual thing. My supposition is that this is concealing a major change, which worries me greatly, about the whole modern world. It is that we are looking at a world in which 1 billion rich give more cereals to their livestock than the other 2 billion poor eat, a world in which

two-thirds of the population eat one-quarter of the world's protein. We are looking at a world in which we have created enormous demand for the conversion of cereals by the affluent to meat products not for nutritional requirements but for preferences of taste.
It is thinking on these lines which is vital now, especially when we have an additional negative introduced, the negative of oil prices, which in this instance creates not only shortages but price problems for the production of nitrogen fertilisers. Whom does this hurt and where are the main problems? It is estimated by many that India this year will lose about 7 per cent. of her potential grain crop. She cannot afford that. What we are discussing tonight is short-term palliatives which in no way affect the major discussion which we should be having about where we are going down this rather dangerous road.
I suggested that my remarks would be uncontroversial. I hope that they will be taken in that spirit. I thank the House for its courtesy in allowing me to conclude them.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: It falls to my very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on his maiden speech. I do that with special interest as a former Member for a Surrey constituency—Wimbledon. The river Wandle, in which Izaak Walton fished, on its way to the Thames is no doubt a rather different river now from what it was, in appearance at any rate. That river also flowed on the borders of my last constituency but two. With those memories of my Surrey past, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He referred to Ruskin, a Victorian gentleman of some literary eminence. It is true that he had a connection with Croydon. He gave his name to the headquarters of the Croydon Labour Party. I most warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his sincere, interesting and informative speech. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House will look forward to his future contributions to our debates.
I intervene in the debate on behalf of the Co-operative Group of Members, which I think is, in point of numbers, the


major group of the minor minority groups in the House. In doing so I wish to declare my interest as a member of a co-operative society—indeed, a shareholder. The co-operative movement welcomes the Bill as a genuine and necessary attempt on the part of the Government to control inflation by the use of subsidies to keep down price increases, in key items of food principally. This is a policy to which the Labour Party was committed at the General Election and to which the Co-operative Party was equally committed. If I am a little critical of some aspects of this measure, and bearing in mind the knowledge which the co-operative movement necessarily has of these matters, I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that this is not intended as a criticism of the principle of the Bill or its general intention. I am concerned only about its application, and perhaps the worries I have in that direction will be put right in Committee, or at least I hope so.
Some of us feel that the Bill should not be considered in isolation from the counter-inflation policy. Some of that which was good in the previous Government's policy is to be carried on, and that is not unreasonable. Some of the effects of the previous Government's actions in regard to the retail trade, particularly stages 1 and 2, are only now beginning to filter down to the lower reaches. Already it is becoming clear that there are many unfairnesses, and in that respect co-operation as a retail trade movement is particularly vulnerable.
Co-operation as a trading principle has application in many areas other than the purely conventional sphere. It can be applied to farming, fishing, housing and architecture. However, the great bulk of co-operative trading is still done in the retail trade and it has a special appeal to those on low wages and small incomes. It is for that reason that the co-operative trade is, to a far greater extent perhaps than the trade of any other section of commercialism, concentrated on food.
Here I wish to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), whose speech would have carried much greater conviction if his party had not been so recently in power. The country saw what happened as a result of the Conservative Government's

policies and judged them accordingly. He referred to the question of margins. Certain set margins are being applied from 1st April. It is intended to reduce margins in the food by 10 per cent., but trade generally can still operate at a net margin of 1½ per cent. The average cooperative with a large proportion of its trade concentrated on food will be hit very hard by that action. Co-operative societies could find themselves in many cases operating the food section of their businesses at a loss, and they do not have the chance, because of the distribution of their trade, to recoup those losses in other sections of their business. It is a little hard, therefore, for the co-operative movement to discover that the Conservative counter-inflation policy, some of it now being operated by a Labour Government, is discriminating in its effect to the disadvantage of the non-profit-making co-operative trade and to the relative advantage of private trade. Unless it is watched very carefully, that kind of policy can result in every kind of distortion, unevenness and perhaps injustice in its application.

Mr. Gorst: If a loss situation were created in the food side of the co-op, and it were serious and protracted, would there be any danger of the co-op's having to remove itself from that line of business altogether, or would it be able to afford it nevertheless?

Mr. Palmer: I am not all that expert in every aspect of co-operative trade, but I believe that if over any period of time the average co-operative society, and even some of the largest societies, had to operate its food trade at a loss that would have a serious effect on the general financial viability of its business.
These arguments have been put to the Department by the co-operative society business managers. I believe also that at an earlier stage there was consultation with some of my hon. Friends in this House who represent the co-operative interest. But the trouble seems to be that everybody at the Department is now in a tremendous hurry; no one has a moment to lose. I appreciate, of course, the reasons why my right hon. Friend is working in haste. As she said, inflation is world-wide. She is right, and any nation which does not act to control it within its own borders is contributing


to world inflation. It is no good any separate nation economy saying, as to some extent the previous Government said, "It is not our fault. It is the fault of world conditions", when, unless action is taken, it is itself adding to general world inflation.
The control of price increases is only one part of the cure of inflation. I would never say that it was the only part. The main part is to improve the efficiency of the productive process. For that reason I was glad to hear my right on. Friend's reference to the continued commitment of our party to growth. If I may be a little critical of some of our own propaganda at the last election, we have tended to lose sight of the sound arguments we put forward in 1964 about the need to increase industrial efficiency and, in turn, growth. Therefore, I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said. We are perhaps back on the main road once again and this Bill is part of a larger vision. We shall see.
Holding prices back by measures such as this Bill can be done successfully only on the basis of close and careful consultation with all the interests concerned. It must be done on the basis of bringing everyone in and obtaining their consent. My right hon. Friend said that consultation had taken place with the retail trade, but my information is somewhat different. I am told—and I have obtained this information from the secretary of the research department of the Co-operative Union—that the Retail Consortium Food Committee, of which the Co-operative Union is a member, arranged a meeting with officials of the Department on Tuesday, 2nd April, to discuss proposals to amend the price code. At the start of the meeting they were given a confidential paper about the Prices Bill and given five minutes to read it. The Bill was discussed along with other aspects of the counter-inflation policy. I am told that those present strongly criticised some aspects of the Bill.
The same afternoon a group of about 50 retail trade representatives met officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but under the auspices of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. They, too, were given copies of the confidential paper on the Prices Bill,

but they believed—this is what the research department of the Co-operative Union told me in all sincerity—that the Bill had already been printed when the consultations were taking place. The Bill was given its First Reading on 3rd April. There is a strong feeling within the co-operative movement that consultation has been worse than inadequate. Everything has been done in too much of a hurry.
I wish to suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that more haste may in the end mean less speed. Mistakes made now will take a long time to rectify. The co-operative movement has its own special problems which deserve consideration by a Labour Government. It must be remembered also that the retail trade in the end must survive and give good service. The need to survive and to give good service will continue beyond the present emergency. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends have that in mind. If rough, unthought-out methods are in being when the legislation becomes fully implemented, and the result is that there are store closures and reductions in consumer service, the situation of the public at the end of the day will be worse than when the legislation was conceived.
The powers taken by my right hon. Friend in Clause 2 are wide. Powers are not only given to subsidise food, but there are powers to control the price of a wide variety of goods and services. Why has catering been left out? The House will see that catering is given an exemption. Some of us are puzzled why that should be so. There must be some reason, but it escapes me at the moment.
As a friend of liberty, I must point out that I much dislike the retrospective powers which appear to be given in Clause 3(4) of the Bill. By that provision the Secretary of State may declare that something that was legally valid at the time it was done is subsequently invalid. I think that this is going a little far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If a price increase or charge has already been implemented, does this mean that a trader has to return to the previous position? If that is the case, it is a situation that no trade unionist would tolerate for a moment: to have a wage increase clawed back. I do not see why a trader, who earns his living either


individually or collectively on a reasonable basis of return on capital, should be treated in this way as distinct from other citizens.

Mr. Dan Jones: Before my hon. Friend is too stimulated by the hallelujahs on the Conservative benches, may I ask him whether he is aware that some of these retrospective powers can, and quite properly should, catch the profiteers? [Laughter.] If Conservative Members do not know that, they do not know the first thing about the subject.

Mr. Palmer: I am not stimulated by Conservative cheers—indeed, quite the opposite, as my hon. Friend knows very well. I feel that these retrospective powers are a mistake. They may catch the profiteers, but at the same time they may catch a great number of honest people. That is the difficulty. Certainly the co-operative societies are among the honest people in this country and they say they dislike these retrospective powers to be taken by the Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who introduced the Bill, has always been much concerned about the question of human rights. Surely one human right is that to buy and sell at a just price. Those in the co-operative movement believe that there is a moral element in the whole business of trading and selling. To trade fairly is not to be ashamed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again on this score.
My remarks have perhaps been a little critical in their application to the Bill's provisions but not as to the broad principles behind the legislation. I welcome the Bill in its essential purpose and I take it for granted that before any orders are made under the legislation, if consultation has not been full up until the present time with the retail trade, particularly with the co-operative movement, the consultation will be very much fuller before the orders are laid.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on his maiden speech. He read the passage from Ruskin so eloquently that I thought for a moment that we were among the "Stones of

Venice" rather than the roofs of Croydon. My hon. Friend reminded us all of the needs of the other world in terms of the basic food essentials. We can usefully bear that matter in mind during this debate.
I am glad to be called to speak following the speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). I support, from another point of view in the retail trade, much of what he said in his well-justified criticisms of some of the Bill's contents.
I am concerned mainly with Clause 2 and 3, but first I shall say a few words about the other clauses. Clause 1 relates to subsidies. We have heard a lot about the difficulties associated with subsidies, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). It is difficult to define commodities which are undoubtedly basic necessities for everyone. This difficulty has been illustrated in relation to non-foods, but it is also true regarding foods. Milk is one of the few commodities where there can be little doubt that it is a basic necessity and where it is also possible to subsidise the entire range of the commodity.
Bread must be the next most obvious commodity. But here we have already run into problems of whether it is a basic commodity or whether the sorts of bread now being subsidised are the ones which are basic for all consumers of bread, particularly some of the most needy consumers of bread. The exclusion, for instance, of diet or special breads will not please a number of elderly consumers.
There is also immediately the problem of distortion of the pattern of demand. More consumer demand is put on the subsidised element in a commodity group There is also the matter of artificially directing consumers' choice, which carries considerable risk.
The basic items are sold most widely, most effectively and most cheaply by the large stores. Small shops are put at risk by selective subsidies because they will find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to recover the reduced profit by selling other things, and there will be a tendency for the consumer to prefer the large shop for subsidised items.
The biggest risk of all, and one which the right hon. Lady has shown herself to be well aware of—I hope she will bear it well in mind in discussing subsidies with the trade hereafter—is the risk of subsidising demand while doing nothing to help supply.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether his party is opposed to the idea of subsidisation?

Mr. Sainsbury: I was not saying that. I was pointing out some of the difficulties of extending subsidies beyond the most basic commodities, such as milk. Once we go even to a commodity as simple as bread we start to run into major difficulties. The further one goes in providing subsidies the more disruption there is to the pattern of consumer demand, the more danger there is to the small shopkeeper and the more indiscriminate the subsidies become.
Clause 4 relates to price marking. It has already been recognised that this is not as plain sailing as one might expect. There are risks of unnecessarily increasing costs. However, there is one well-known chain store which has been remarkably successful and which, I can assure the right hon. Lady, sells at low prices, and as a matter of policy it does not mark prices on any of the goods on its shelves. This is a way for it to keep its costs down. This has been very successful and popular with a large number of consumers.
There is considerable risk in embarking upon compulsory price marking without careful consideration. Perhaps there could be consultation sufficiently before the event to enable the ultimate decision to be influenced.
A number of reasons have been suggested against the inclusion of Clause 5 in a Bill which is called a Prices Bill. It is offensive to the many old age pensioners in my constituency that at a time of great inflationary pressure there should be included in this Bill—designed to hold down prices—a clause the purpose of which is to abolish the Pay Board. I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Lady will wonder why it was necessary for her to be saddled with this offensive clause.
The right hon. Lady has spoken of her desire to obtain the co-operation of all parts of the retail trade. I welcome that. If that co-operation is to be obtained, and I hope it will be possible, there are a number of improvements which need to be made. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East referred to the illusion of consultation with regard to this Bill. That does not instil great confidence among those in the retail trade. Clauses 2 and 3 give an extraordinary discretion to the Secretary of State. The Bill is vague as to how this discretion might be exercised. Perhaps the most offensive feature of all is that it includes sections which allow retrospective reduction of prices.
The discretionary and retrospective powers are not likely to inspire great confidence among those in the retail trade. We need far more definition of how those powers might be exercised and what is really meant before there can be any feeling that this is not merely political window-dressing. Even more serious, we have heard from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East of the danger to the financial viability of many businesses from the cumulative effect of one thing after another. The hon. Member talked about the effect of phases 1 and 2 "dripping through". We have some more activities of the Price Commission which are doing more than drip through for the retail trade. Combined with the effects of Clauses 2 and 3, they pose a serious threat to the financial viability of large sections of the retail trade, particularly the retailers specialising in food.
All hon. Members are aware that at times of financial difficulty it is the weakest who go to the wall. Many of the small shopkeepers are necessarily among those with the most limited financial resources. I do not need to remind the right hon. Lady of the vital rôle played by the small shops, whether independent or owned by other sections of the retail trade, such as the co-operative movement, which operates quite a number of such shops.
Those small shops are of real importance to the most needy in the community. The old age pensioner, the disabled, the housewife with young children—people who cannot go very far to do their food shopping and cannot get into the city centre to shop at the large stores


—depend upon these small shops. If they find that these shops are no longer there because of the provisions of the Bill they will not have anything for which to thank the right hon. Lady.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady is familiar with the many difficulties associated with Clauses 2 and 3. I appreciate that if we are to have powers for fixing retail prices, necessarily we need to take powers to ensure the display in retail stores of the fixed price, so as to reassure the consumer. But there are many pit-falls associated with these activities.
An average supermarket carries 4,000 lines. Not every customer buys every line on every visit—we should be delighted if customers did—but over a month customers buy a large number of lines. I cannot imagine customers going round the store equipped with a dictionary trying to determine which of the 4,000 lines has a permitted maximum price or range of prices. There has been no reference to quality in the debate—a curious omission if we have at heart the welfare of the consumer. How do we define perishable foods, and how do we take account of the enormous variation in quality? Hon. Members who have sampled the wares of the catering facilities in the House will be aware that not all steaks taste alike even when they are cooked identically. There is great difficulty in describing the quality of perishable food.
Reference has been made to the wide difference in operating costs between various types of store. It may not be appreciated that the difference in operating costs between a fairly efficient counter-service shop and an averagely efficient large supermarket can be as much as nearly twice the total labour costs. That means a difference of perhaps 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. in operating costs, which is a much greater difference reflected through to the housewife's shopping bill than is any difference that might be achieved by the measures in the Bill.
Not only are there different types of store, but within their own organisation groups have widely differing types of store. The co-operative movement, for example, operates hypermarkets—although I am not sure that they are called by that name—and also small corner shops. Sometimes both types of store are operated by the same society. The same pattern is reflected in the private sector.

Not only is there a wide difference in the operating costs of various types of store, but the same group may operate various types of store. This raises considerable difficulties in relation to the measures proposed in Clauses 2 and 3.
Nearly all the customers of large stores and supermarkets are also weekly customers of small shops. They may make one or even two visits a week to a large store, and perhaps one visit a month to a hypermarket, but they also make frequent—perhaps daily—visits to small stores. I remind the right hon. Lady of the difficulties of the elderly shopper who finds it difficult to appreciate price differences even when she always goes to the same shop. Elderly shoppers do not take so easily and kindly to change as do young ones.

Mr. Dan Jones: Nor to price increases.

Mr. Sainsbury: Nor to price increases. Do we want to make them still more confused by finding that there is one permitted maximum price in the small shop and another permitted maximum price in the larger shop?
The right hon. Lady spoke of a range of prices. She was kind enough to suggest that I know well how easy it is to determine the appropriate bottom level. I wish that I did find it easy. I could show the right hon. Lady the difference in operating costs even between our large and our largest supermarkets. I would find it strange help to the consumer to set a range of costs and then forbid any group to sell below the lowest price set. Yet, if we are to use the actual practical range of costs, we are going to have a very wide range indeed. This will be very confusing to most shoppers, and both confusing and disturbing to the elderly.
One wonders what is the need for Clauses 2 and 3 if we have the Price Commission and its powers already in existence. Certainly, on Clause 3 this query must be raised even more strongly. Clause 3 must produce the maximum uncertainty in the retail trade, and that will be damaging to the whole trade. Most of all, I think it will be damaging in the effect it has on the small shop.
Clause 3 will affect the small shopkeeper because his prices are going to be contrasted sharply and directly with the necessarily lower prices in the larger store, and inevitably there will be a


further drift from the small shops to the large shops, which will affect the financial viability of more small shops. If they go out of business, that will inevitably in turn affect the consumers.
The profits of the larger groups will be continually squeezed, despite the protestations we have heard. This will damage investment. The scale of investment in the retail industry is very large. A single new supermarket can cost £500.000. The money has to be found somewhere or there will not be any more supermarkets. If hon. Members opposite, who are so loquacious, were to consult some of the housewives in their constituencies and inquire whether they like being able to shop in a supermarket they might find some answers in the affirmative.
Let us remember that the entire supermarket industry is a creation of the last 25 years—a great part of it of the last 10 years. I contend that the supermarket industry has brought lower prices, more hygienic shops and wider choice to the consumer, who has thus benefited from investment by the entire retail trade, including the co-operative movement. Of course, we are reassured when we read what the Under-Secretary of State had to say:
It must be emphasised that the Government accept the important rôle played by profits and recognise clearly the connection between profits and investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 1264.]
We are further reassured when we hear the right hon. Lady say that the Government accept the need for investment.
But what do we see in practice? If Clauses 2 and 3 have any meaning, they mean that the profits of the retail trade are going to be reduced below the reasonable levels which are set out under the defined criteria in the Price Code. Inevitably, if those profits suffer, investment and productivity suffer, and the cheaper prices from which in the medium and long term the housewife really wants to benefit will also suffer.
The right hon. Lady has asked for suggestions of how the Bill can be improved. I hope we shall have an opportunity to introduce into the Bill, which has an attractive title, some measure which would help. I suggest some of them now in order that the right hon.

Lady can consult her colleagues about them. The first is depreciation allowances for new retail stores. The second is help for the rates on commercial premises and not just for the domestic ratepayer. Thirdly, perhaps we can find a way of making it easier and quicker to get planning permission for new stores. This aspect often affects the consumer. Perhaps we could examine carefully the difficulties posed by high interest rates on the access to capital of small businesses. This is a very serious point because, inevitably, it affects the turnover in small shops, and if there are no people to take up the small shops being sold by retiring shopkeepers we shall have closures again.
Perhaps we could look again at the burden of administrative action. I remember a complaint about this a number of years ago when the Labour Party was last in power. A complaint was made to the NEDC about the number of forms which had to be filled in by the retail trade. After due deliberation, we had a form to fill in about the number of forms that we had to fill in. We have a recent illustration where the Factory Inspectorate has suddenly decided to get in on the act. Deispite the fact that shop premises are inspected and certified under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, we now find that the Factory Inspectorate, at a time when our fire brigades have more than enough on their hands, is coming back to re-inspect the very same premises and asking for fresh fire certificates for small parts of those premises. It is administrative matters of that kind which we could tackle usefully to help keep down the operating costs of the retail trade, to the benefit of the consumer.
We have a Bill with an attractive title. However, it will not help the producers of much of our food. The farmer will not thank the Government for the Bill. It will be evident to the right hon. Lady, despite her protestations, from what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East and I have said that the retail trade is not exactly bubbling over with enthusiasm. The small shopkeeper will be even less enthusiastic.
Then we have the consumer. We all have the interests of the consumer at heart. If we did not, we should not be in business for very long. I see for the


consumer a temporary short-term advantage in perhaps a small reduction in the prices of some items. But at what cost? Initially, there will be confusion and direction of her choice. Not much later, there will be a very large bill for her to pick up. Inevitably, investment and the viability of the small business will be affected adversely.
What is the reason for the contents of the Bill? We have looked for help to the farmer, to the retailer and to the consumer. We cannot find it. I am guided by the words of wisdom of a very intelligent pipe smoker of considerable fame. He said:
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
It was, of course, Sherlock Holmes, and perhaps he provides us with the reason for these clauses. I suspect that the reason is political window-dressing.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It will soon become known in the country, because we Liberals will see that it is rubbed home during the Easter Recess, that this major Bill affecting every householder has been brought in under cover of darkness. It was introduced at an absurdly late hour. As a result, some distinguished contributions that we heard earlier will not be reported in the morning papers, and the impression will be given that this has been deliberate.
One can understand the Government wishing to bring in rather furtively a Bill which obviously has not been very carefully prepared and certainly has not been through any new open process of consultation. One wonders what the front legs of the Conservative Opposition have been doing about this piece of timing. Surely they could have made representations that it was not proper that a measure of this sort conferring such wide powers on the Government and bringing in such substantial expenditure—against which the Liberal Party intends to divide the House—should be brought in at this hour. There is bound to be a feeling of conspiracy when one notices how sparse has been the attendance on the Conservative Opposition Front Bench throughout the debate. One gets the impression that there is only a very token opposition

by a party which must feel deeply embarrassed by virtually every clause in the Bill.
I regret that the two distinguished contributions, one from each side of the House, by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), speaking as a member of the Co-operative Group, and by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), on the enlightening aspects of retailing problems today, have had to be made at such a late hour.
Having said that about those two contributions, I should like to add that, less than six weeks from an election which largely centred on prices and pay, the voice of 6 million people who voted Liberal is not heard in the House until a quarter past eleven.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The Liberals were not here.

Mr. Wainwright: Have no fear, reinforcements always arrive. I mention this to make it clear that the Liberal Party was not consulted about the timing of this Second Reading debate. That kind of thing will not, for our part, continue. We shall ensure that the country is made aware that Parliament is being treated in a contemptible way.
When the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was appointed to her Department there was widespread sympathetic comment that the Prime Minister had cast her in a difficult, if not impossible, rôle. Fears were expressed that her distinguished political career might suffer from being put in charge of this extremely difficult Department. So it is already proving. We sympathise that she has inherited the major part of the burden of these absurd threshold agreements which were an open invitation to inflation—almost as serious an invitation to inflation as the avalanche of plastic Access cards for which so many hon. Members on this side of the House were responsible only a year or two ago.
The right hon. Lady is part of a crew who have set to sea in a sieve, and she is the first Minister called upon to get to work with the bailer. At vast public expense she is introducing a set of subsidies which will have only a minimal effect upon the cost of living. In fact, they are designed to help not people but an index.
Owing to the circumstances in which the debate is being held the right hon. Lady's speech consisted largely of conventional wisdom—the sort of half truths which are passed down from text book to text book and thesis to thesis. We heard nothing about the strange choice of butter as an item to be singled out for one of the three major subsidies.
When I hold my reporting meeting on the debate in my constituency the first question will be: "Why not marge?" The right hon. Lady was unable to tell us. It is an extraordinary proposition that of the three commodities chosen for this first very expensive experiment butter should be included. I hope that in the reply we shall, at least, have some comment on the alternative to butter which so many of the lower paid in the industrial areas rely upon.
We on this bench agree with the right hon. Lady's dismissal of means-tested subsidies. There we think that she is on sounder ground. But we shall feel bound to divide on the Money Resolution, because we believe that the whole scheme is fundamentally misconceived. The right hon. Lady was unable to say how she intends to make sure that the subsidy fully benefits the consumer and is not largely lost on the way by getting into other people's pockets. She said nothing about the butter and milk that will be inputs into luxury items of food. She said nothing about the milk that goes into frivolous items of expenditure. I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister will clarify how that will be taken care of.
Turning quickly to Clause 2, in view of what we have been saying for months we are glad that at last there is to be a serious regulation of margins and we are to get away from this simplistic concentration on mere percentages.
I come now to the Gilbertian part of the Bill which suddenly switches off prices and indulges in a redundant and unnecessary clause about the Pay Board. Here again, in the distressing circumstances of the debate we have had no clarification of the Government's intentions about replacing the Pay Board by some other monitoring body. Virtually all the academic experts, and some of the more practical people, too, have reached the

conclusion that whether there is a so-called voluntary incomes policy, or a statutory one, or a lawyers' paradise, there must be some monitoring body. I hope that in the winding-up speech we shall hear something about what the Government intend to do if and when they summon up the courage to dismiss the Pay Board. Liberals hope that whatever machinery is set up there will be vastly improved methods of consultation.
I conclude with a quotation from the present Chairman of the Pay Board, Sir Frank Figgures. When addressing the Manchester Statistical Society on 3rd April he said:
there are very many who are not represented in any meaningful way by the Unions affiliated to the TUC or (on the employer's side) by the individual firms and organisations associated with the CBI…all will need to be in some way consulted.
It could, in a modest way, slightly redeem this unfortunate Bill if we could be given some indication of a new machinery of a more democratic character embodying genuine consultation to monitor the particular form of incomes policy on which the Government appear to have embarked. But the Bill is simply an unhappy, although logical, sequel to the decision that the Government took immediately after regaining office to throw statutory controls to the winds and to trust to the frail craft of the alleged social compact. One is bound to hope that the miracle will come off for the sake of the country, but we on the Liberal bench want to take no part in furthering this measure.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I never cease to wonder at the way in which hon. Members of the Liberal Party are able to attract 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of their parliamentary supporters by the brilliance of their oratory. I wish that I had a similar attraction for members of my party.
I agree with a large part of what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). Indeed, I agree with it all except for his words about the Pay Board, because to me the only redeeming feature of the Bill is that the Pay Board might one day disappear. However, I confess to not being too sure that that will happen, because if the Pay Board is to disappear there is no need for the clause dealing with it. The necessary


order could be laid under the Counter-Inflation Acts and the board could be done away with by Monday.
But that is not what the Government are doing. Those, like the hon. Member, who want to see the Pay Board retained need have no fear. Clause 5 is in the Bill simply to placate those Labour Members and members of the TUC to whom pledges have been given that the Pay Board would be abolished. This is as vital and fundamental a piece of Socialist machinery for controlling the economic indicators of the economy as one could desire to see.
I was interested in the right hon. Lady's economic introduction. She was not too sure of her ground. She protested that the Bill was designed to halt or slow down inflation, but was very fearful of giving way to have any of her points challenged from this side. The whole Bill is based on a bogus economic diagnosis. All that she is seeking to do is to tackle some of the symptoms of inflation. What the Government have done is stick a 14 per cent. inflation sticker on a 15 per cent. rate of inflation. That is exactly the thing that they are stopping in the Bill, and they are doing it here for electoral reasons.
The Bill, if anything, slightly increases the rate of inflation and reduces it not at all. The details are remarkably ill thought out, but it is not them I wish to talk about so much as its economic effects. It tends to take from savings and profit and investment and give to consumption. This indeed is the theme of the Budget and of the Government's whole economic policy.
Let us take the milk subsidy—£275 million in a full year. The strictures that I make about subsidising milk apply to past régimes as well as present—that is nothing new from me. It is of little help to pensioners or to the worst off in the land, and that sum could have done a great deal more good if it had been spent in other ways. But, apart from that, it represents more spending power for all in the population who drink milk because they will pay less for milk and, therefore, will have additional spending power in order to buy other things, thereby bidding up the price of other things and contributing to the rate of inflation.
The right hon. Lady reminds me of Lady Macbeth:
Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances You wait on nature's mischief!
That is the price we have to pay for the election pledges of the Labour Party.
Clause 2 seeks to destroy the profit margins of those who provide
articles which appear to the Secretary of State to be necessities normally the subject of recurrent expenditure and significantly affecting the cost of living for persons with small incomes.
The inconsistency here is that we go about trying to help these people by erecting particularly strong price controls on those who make the things that help those people. The result is that by destroying their profit margins we stop them investing for the future, thereby reducing the likelihood of their being able to cheapen the goods they produce in future and at the same time causing perhaps some of them to go out of business in the near future. thus making shortages of those very articles where we are trying to help.
When we hear that the Price Commission boasted that it had saved over £300 million from profits last year—I have heard rumours that the figure that it is now to claim that it has saved is some £700 million off prices, for the benefit of consumption—what we are saying is that we have taken out of saving for investment in the future in order to consume it at present. When we add what the Bill will do to shopkeepers and retailers, what has been done to farmers and what is not being undone for the benefit of farmers, we see that the whole of the present Government's philosophy is to make people produce or market and sell at prices which may well be uneconomic. The Government do not care because they hope to have the next election before the chickens come home to roost, before the shortages of supply appear and before the bankruptcies and the distress in the supplying side of industry take effect.
The worst part of the Bill is Clause 3, in which "exceptional circumstances" allow the Minister to reduce prices with-out so much as an explanation. Why has the right hon. Lady not put into the clause order-making powers? Whatever


the exceptional circumstances may be, may we not have them put before the House and debated and approved by the House? I very much hope that she will introduce at least a negative resolution procedure so that no one can be picked upon. Indeed, I have the slight feeling that the Bill contains elements of hybridity, because under Clause 3 a single firm can be victimised and can have its prices cut without any reference whatsoever to the House, and it may be bankrupted. If it turns out to be one of the firms less well favoured on the Government benches, we have no redress and nor has the firm. It can be stifled overnight by Clause 3. Let us at least have that increased parliamentary accountability which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment promised when he outlined his policy on these matters on 18th March.
As I have said, the purpose of the Bill is what worries me, because as far as I can see the Bill is not to beat inflation but is to beat the retail price index, and those are very different things. Indeed, I think that the Government cannot tell the sheep from the scapegoats. This is an attack upon scapegoats. Whether they be land reclaimers, shopkeepers, farmers, grocers, producers or manufacturers, they are made out to be the causes of inflation; they are the culprits upon whom all blame is turned. Yet we all know perfectly well that it is the manufacture of money which is the cause of inflation, and not those who vicariously benefit or suffer from its results.
But, furthermore, we face a crisis in our overseas account which necessarily means that the terms of trade have turned against us to a very large degree. That means that the only way that we can accommodate that is actually to reduce our standard of living. We have either to borrow very heavily or to reduce our standard of living—or we have to suffer worse and worse inflation. But, however, the crisis is to be tackled—and it cannot mean increases for anyone—there can be no more stupid way to go about it than to start off taking from saving and giving to consumption—in other words, making some people actually better off at a time when we should be reducing our standard of living, robbing the saving

sector, the seed corn, in order to do so, thereby mortgaging or jeopardising the future; and doing all this at a time of rising Government expenditure which will undoubtedly increase the rate of inflation in the future.
There is no easy way. There are no gimmicks. The Bill is just one more dreary step along the road to deterioration which this Government have taken to even more eagerly than did my right hon. Friends before them. The Bill should be withdrawn, and I shall not support it at any stage.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: For the sake of the record, I must make one matter clear at the outset. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) accused my right hon. Friend of not giving way. He must have known—he was in the House—that that is just not true. In fact, my right hon. Friend gave way no fewer than 10 times. In fairness, I should add that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who led for the Opposition, gave way a number of times. I have rarely heard a debate in which the two Front Bench spokesmen gave way so frequently, and it is a distortion to allege anything different.
I support the Bill. I do so challengingly, and I shall give the House some cogent reasons for that support. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury seemed to think that my right hon. Friend could present some sort of panacea after the débâcle left by the Tory Government. He does not recognise, apparently, that it is distinctly possible that this Bill, when it becomes law—I shall do all I can to help it on its way—will produce in the country a climate far better than the climate which the Conservatives produced when they were in power. This in itself could at least lead to an elimination of the waste which we endured—not least, with the many labour upsets of that period.
Opposition Members have not mentioned that factor so far, and neither has any of my hon. Friends, for that matter, but, having been engaged in industrial affairs for many years, I know without a shadow of doubt that if one creates an atmosphere of justice—and the Bill


is an attempt in that direction—the response can be very gratifying. The Opposition would do well to get that into their prejudiced minds.
Nearly every Opposition speaker has asserted that the Bill has only one purpose, that purpose, apparently, being to harness political good will. Even supposing that there might be a grain of truth in that, they should be the last people on earth to talk about such purposes. Damn it all—is it not a fact that the present Leader of the Opposition gave a precise pledge in 1970 with that object in mind? Of course, he did. He won that election on the strength of it, but he lost in 1974 because he was not trusted any more.
The right hon. Gentleman made his pledge that he would reduce the rate of price rises, but the figures show that in that period food prices increased by 54½ per cent. I have no doubt about the way people are affected or about the way they are thinking. There is no hon. Member who does the sort of doorstep work that I do regularly. That is the way to get the truth, not just from the Financial Times and the rest. It would do some Conservatives the world of good if from time to time they had these experiences. They would then make more practical contributions to the debate.
The Conservatives have mentioned the difficulties for the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer. They are forgetting that highly responsible businessmen are at this moment reducing prices without any question of subsidies. We do not need to have the vast economic experience that the Conservatives pretend to possess to understand why they are cutting prices. A person with simple practical knowledge and experience knows the answer. These gestures were never made during the Conservative period of Government.
For that reason I am content to believe that in the atmosphere that the Bill can produce we shall see gratifying results, and I hope that that will be so. The hon. Member for Southend, West made a series of charges against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State based on his criticism of the efficiency of the Bill. That comes ill from a former Minister who presided over the worst housing record in our post-war history. There was a minimum amount of efficiency there.
The hon. Member mentioned the significance of bread. Even now, and without waiting for Government measures, master bakers are reducing the price of their bread. Are those people amazing experts or is it that they possess an element of social morality? I wonder which is the case. If they can do it there seems no reason why other businessmen, similarly disposed and trading in a similar way, should not do likewise. I defend that view point against any kind of opposition, whether it is the surreptitious opposition I face now or a genuinely constructive opposition. The grins on some of the Conservative Members' faces would lead one to suspect we were discussing the affairs of a canine society and not the serious subject of the cost of living.
The Labour Government have done remarkable things in their short period of office. We ended the miners' strike, which was deliberately provoked for political purposes. We have ended the three-day working week. We have reduced rents. We have held mortgages, and I think we shall eventually reduce them. For no fewer than 1,500,000 lower-paid workers we have reduced taxes. Before the Opposition say that we have not made serious efforts to reduce prices let them examine those measures.
There has been no mention yet of outright profiteering, There is certainly evidence of it in my constituency. I have evidence of outright profiteering, provided in unsolicited letters to me by constituents. When Conservative Members talk about the retrospective effect of certain clauses, they fail to realise that profiteers are to be found in the country, and we will not tolerate the effects of their practices upon ordinary people. I would expect Conservative and Liberal Members to agree.
I have made the matter a subject of debate in my constituency. I would much rather have debated it with the Chamber of Trade there than debate it here, because I expect its members to defend decency of trading. Otherwise, they must be open to the charge that as long as they are making big profits they do not give a damn about the people whom they are expected to serve. Conservative Members try to impress us by talking about the poor hard-done-by wholesalers and retailers. I should like them to listen


closely to the following paragraph of the reply from the traders to me:
As traders we categorically refute the accusations of our Members of Parliament"—
that is myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I do not give a damn for any Conservative Member, any more than I care for those who sent the letter. I believe in one thing—the truth as I see it—and I will express that. The letter continues:
and also declare ourselves to be wholly opposed to any form of price control what-soever.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Fair enough. Conservative Members are showing themselves in their true colours, saying that it does not matter a damn how profits are made, how they affect the people who are supposed to be served, and that those profits can be made without any form of control. That is what Conservative Members cried their hallelujahs about, and I shall remind them of it in the coming months.
I fully support my right hon. Friend. Apart from the Bill, her character is such that she has earned the respect of the House over many years. She has earned the right to introduce such a measure, which is a contribution by the Government to the attempt to solve a problem that has been worrying our people for far too long, one that was almost totally neglected by the Conservatives.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. John Gorst: I feel almost breathless as I start to speak at this time of the night, and therefore I shall be as brief as possible.
I have no argument about the aim of the Bill in so far as it is determined to alleviate the hardship of inflation on particular elements in the community. With that I have no quarrel. But it is going about it in fundamentally the wrong way. A Prices Bill may well be necessary, but this Prices Bill is totally unnecessary. It seeks laudable objectives such as price stability, the reduction of the rate of inflation and protection of the hardest hit, but I find the remedy which it proposes objectionable. It makes no distinction between those who are defenceless in the face of inflation and those who are able to fend for themselves.
It is no defence for the right hon. Lady to say, as she said on 1st April when I asked her a Question, that, in effect, indiscriminate subsidies are perfectly all right because the previous administration subsidised milk and the nationalised industries. Once subsidies move into more essential foods and more of them, the argument must no longer be about who did what, when and why but how we shall find the money to do what is now proposed.
The scale and scope of the changes which are undoubtedly contemplated, with £700 million put aside, change the nature of the problem entirely. The right hon. Lady told me when I intervened in her speech that she was going to deal with the matter which I raised. I am sorry to say that she did not do so. I wanted to know the proportion of people at various different income levels, and particularly those that she identified. It is only when we know exactly what those levels are that we can establish the size and extent of those who have a real need for support and whether it is feasible to have indiscriminate subsidies or selective subsidies. When the right hon. Lady decided not to deal with that matter, it could only be assumed that she had not persuaded herself that the case for having selective subsidies has not been established.
I criticise the Bill because it seeks to do the right thing with the wrong methods. If I were to summarise my objections, I should say that it is indiscriminate, ungenerous, doctrinaire, hypocritical, profligate, dangerously ineffective and effectively dangerous.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a Bill of this type is indiscriminate? Surely he accepts the simple statistic of fact that 1p on the loaf is a far greater contribution to the person at the lower end of the income range than it is to a person at the top? That is what makes the Bill discriminate in favour of the lower paid in the community. It is not an indiscriminate measure.

Mr. Gorst: If the hon. Gentleman had waited I should have made that my next point. If we were to shower fertiliser from an aircraft here, there and everywhere to those in need and to those who are affluent, minuscule crumbs of 1p for those


in real need and senseless subsidies for the rich, the fertiliser would be spread so widely that it would be meaningless for those in real need.
The right hon. Lady in her Bill should have been discriminating and selective. She should not have tried to subsidise so widely commodities such as bread and milk. She should have subsidised the pockets of the people who require help and identified that need so that people would have the money with which to pay the prices, rather than seeking to drive a large number of retailers into possible extinction.
I believe that the Bill will be dangerously ineffective. We all recognise that it is very much a ploy, an item in the powder compact with which to sweeten the faces in the TUC. We all know that cosmetics, particularly face powders, have a sweet smell but not much substance. This is precisely the nature of the Bill: it is all window-dressing, as are all cosmetics, but at the end of the day whom will it benefit? I repeat that it will be dangerously ineffective because it will distort the market and will reduce the market's efficiency. Once we have dealt with the anomalies, discrepancies and inconsistencies, it could well wipe out a large number of small shopkeepers.
Unless the Secretary of State has a boundless magical command of language, I believe that the intricacies of definition will be enormous, the errors of interpretation will undoubtedly be legion, and the problems of administration will be prodigious by any standards.
I believe that the powers conferred by the Bill will lead inexorably to a drift—not to lower prices but to maximum prices, accompanied by a minimum of competition through a diminished number of retail outlets. We all know that Socialists in the House will not give a damn. They will undoubtedly applaud the dislocation of a free market and the turning of profit-making into loss-making—a compulsory lurch towards the millenium which they regard as a rational concept. Some Labour Members will undoubtedly be laughing all the way to Moscow.

Mr. James Hamilton: Behave yourself. Go home, man.

Mr. Gorst: Clearly, the response from the Labour benches shows that there must

be at least some element of truth in what I am saying. Unless the Government are prepared to look much more closely at the imposition of selective subsidies wherever there is a proven need for them—or, alternatively, unless they deal with the matter on the basis of those with a real need being given more cash with which to meet rising prices, I shall not find it possible to support this type of Bill, let alone one that seeks, quite irrelevantly, to abolish the Pay Board.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that I would go quite so far as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in expressing enthusiasm for at least the purposes behind the Bill, but as I found it difficult to find any enthusiasm for the purposes behind rather similar legislation passed by the Conservative Government, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will not expect me to give an overwhelming welcome to the Bill.
I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), was interested in the right hon. Lady's introduction to the Bill and I beg her to go back and read what was said by her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. She will find that what she said and what he said about the conditions of corporate liquidity was completely inconsistent. We all realised, listening to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the last day of the Budget debate, that the Government were becoming scared about what they were being told about corporate liquidity, and there has been further evidence of that today from the right hon. Lady. She should not claim, because it is not true, that what she said was directly consistent with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his Budget Statement. I beg her to reexamine both propositions.
The Bill has four principal propositions, as I see it. First, there is the provision for indiscriminate subsidies on food, up to £700 million. Secondly, there is provision for price fixing on a wide range of goods, regardless of availability or cost to the suppliers of the goods. Thirdly, there is provision for a decision by the right hon. Lady, sheltering behind the extra-parliamentary posture of the Price


Commission and thereby greatly extending the absence of proper parliamentary control over the activities of the Price Commission, which was greatly criticised by her right hon. Friends when in opposition, as well as by some of us on these benches. Fourthly, there is the wonderful provision in Clause 5 to convince the right hon. Lady's back benches that the Government are proposing to do something which they are already totally empowered to do under existing legislation, to fulfil their election pledges about the Pay Board.
I do not think very much of the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment in this debate. In days gone by he used to tell us a great deal about the vital importance of the Chamber as the centre of parliamentary activity, but he has not paid it much attention during discussion of a Bill one aspect of which lies entirely within the responsibility of his Department.
I turn to the proposals for open-ended food subsidies. I confess that if I had to choose between open-ended food subsidies and open-ended subsidies to the nationalised industries I would choose open-ended food subsidies. I do not believe that open-ended food subsidies have the appalling distortionary effect on investment decisions and allocation of resources which open-ended subsidies to nationalised industries have. Neither do I think that open-ended food subsidies have the effect on the pattern of wage negotiations within an industry affected directly by subsidisation that the subsidisation of nationalised industry prices has had.
Having said that, I believe that all the other objections about food subsidies are just as valid as the objections about subsidies for prices in nationalised industries. There is, for instance, the indiscriminate nature of the subsidy and the difficulty of climbing out of the position of subsidisation into which we dig ourselves deeper and deeper. I refer to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about food subsidies a year ago at Sidcup. He was quoted as saying:
The difficulty about a massive system of subsidies…is that they would be very expensive and not very effective. They are expensive because subsidies go to those who do not need them as well as to those who do.

I can only say amen to that and hope that it remains the policy of my party whatever action my right hon. Friends or hon. Friends may adopt in the Lobby.
This is just one more example of the increasing propensity of successive Governments to seek to bribe the electorate with its own money. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) talked about how these subsidies would be of such benefit to the poorest members of the community. We all know that the vast majority of families who will receive these subsidies will be paying for them in taxation. What we are doing is saying that we will take from people with one hand and give them back their own money with the other, but in ways which the civil servants dictate, so that we may say "It is good and proper for people to buy a large loaf. We will subsidise that. But the small loaf is improper. It may even be fancy. It could even be continental! At no price will we subsidise that. That is the sort of purchase which no respectable family in the land would make."
This attempt to shop around by the civil servants on behalf of the housewife will not bring the electoral rewards the Labour Party seems to imagine and which, perhaps. some of my hon. and right hon. Friends fear it might.
I turn to Clauses 2 and 3, where we see the remarkable extension of the authority of the Price Commission to extend the system of arbitrary price fixing and even, under Clause 3, to chuck its own rule book out of the window. Here I refer briefly to the amendment standing in the names of a large number of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, referring to the impact of this on corporate liquidity. A number of my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Lady, have referred to this.
The right hon. Lady referred to the representations of the CBI on this point. We have all studied these with great interest. There is no doubt that the CBI is representing a serious case. I cannot help feeling that sometimes the CBI representations might be more opportune if it were to choose a different spokesman. To get Mr. Campbell Adamson to attack propositions for fixing prices is a little like hiring Casanova to denounce adultery. Who started it? It was Mr. Campbell Adamson in July 1971 who


launched the whole lunatic exercise with his 5 per cent. scheme of price control. If the CBI wants to carry conviction it is about time that it got a different spokesman.
We must examine a little more closely the ingenuity of the operation of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. I draw the attention of hon. Members to a fascinating report in yesterday's Times about the confrontation between the bread manufacturers and the Price Commission. The report said that in its negotiations with Associated British Foods and Rank Hovis MacDougall the Price Commission was refusing:
to accept officially that bread was being sub-sidised. Companies are therefore making parallel pre-notifications. One includes the easing of costs achieved by the subsidy while the other is framed as if no subsidy exists.
The report goes on to describe how the Price Commission connived, and that is not too strong a word, with the right hon. Lady to cheat the bread manufacturers in such a manner that bread subsidies could be halved by deferring decisions to the last possible moment and then making a cut for which there was no evident justification.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am bound to ask the hon. Friend to give far greater evidence for that statement than he has yet presented. I profoundly resent it. There is no truth whatsoever in it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady read the report in The Times. I was about to say when she intervened that The Times concludes that the right hon. Lady "hotly denied"—and this perhaps meets the point she seeks to make—
that she had put pressure on the Commission".
I was about to say that I entirely accept her denials, because no pressure is needed. Sir Arthur Cockfield is her poodle, and it is a sad commentary on the career of a distinguished public servant that he should end his days in a public rôle as the plaything of a Minister who is playing politics with prices. The Price Commission is manipulated and the cost of the bread subsidy to the Treasury is blunted.
Where will the right hon. Lady turn next? What are we to read into Clause

2(2)? There have been various speculative comments on this, and I will hazard a few guesses. I think that she will probably exercise her powers under Clause 2(2) to control the price of mushrooms and pantie-hose. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said that the powers would not be used against prices which are elastic, I think that pantie-hose might yet feature in an early application of these powers. I do not think that peaches will, or prunes, and, as a bicyclist, I am sad to say that I do not think that pedal-cycle tyres will either. I make these prognostications because the first group of items appears in the retail price index and the second does not. Clause 2(2) will be used to manipulate the retail price index. That is not hard to foresee.
What will be the effect of prolonged and intensified price control? Essentially, there will be two effects, one on the availability of supplies and the other on employment in the industries affected. In the last few months we have seen how the activities of the Price Commission have driven some commodities off the counters of shops because it is no longer profitable to sell them. In the months ahead we shall see more of this. It may, indeed, be that the right hon. Lady will cause the entire retail price index to disappear, and I suppose that that will help us with the problem of the threshold increases.
The other impact that these activities will have is that goods that might be sold at home, even at a profit, will be diverted to export markets where there is no profit margin control and where exporting is at present extremely profitable. To cite one example, the export of earth-moving machinery increased in volume terms by 90 per cent. in the first 10 months of last year, while the import of earth-moving machinery increased by a similar amount. That demonstrates in classic terms how the effect of the Price Commission's activities—which the right hon. Lady wishes to extend—is to divert goods which we require for the domestic market to the export market, so that they or similar goods have to be reimported. That may be good for the empire-building activities of the Price Commission—and it is the fastest growth industry in


the nation today—but the effect on the balance of payments, to put it mildly, is perverse. I believe that we shall see a great deal more of that before we are through.
Then there is the effect on employment. Here, we do not need to read the crystal ball; we can read the book—once again, The Times. We are fortunate to be able to read in it the comments of a lady known to some of us and highly respected as a distinguished journalist who happens herself to be a member of the Price Commission—Miss Sheila Black. She wrote a long article in The Times in which she took as her text the closure of the Scottish Daily Express and the Glasgow Evening Citizen. She wrote:
The Price Commission has come in for its share of blame for the death of newspapers. The code is hard on newspapers, it is true. But the main trouble is that newspapers started the freeze era with their advertising rates and their cover prices artificially low…Putting it briefly, a company has to suffer before it can get relief…
She described how increased costs have to be claimed in arears, quoting with approval the Managing Director of the International Publishing Corporation, Mr. Roberts, who described the activities of the Price Commission in this context as a "passport to bankruptcy". Yet what does Miss Black have to say about the activities of the commission? Merely that it is "obeying the rules". This is reminiscent of Hillaire Belloc's lines about doctors
Who murmured as they took their fees, 'There is no cure for this disease'.
We have to be grateful for Miss Black, who might be described as a poacher turned gamekeeper but is allowed from time to time to do some moonlighting as a poacher and give some illumination of the murkier corners of the body of which she is a distinguished member.
I would also draw attention to the way in which the right hon. Lady is extending the extra-parliamentary powers and authority of the commission. I wish she would re-read what her right hon. and hon. Friends had to say during the Committee stage of the Conservative Government's Counter-Inflation Act. The present Secretary of State for Industry said:
The second issue is whether intervention is to be accountable to Parliament. I imagine that the Opposition"—

then the Labour Party, of course—
will be able to enlist the support of the Liberals and perhaps that of some hon. Members opposite who, whatever they may think about the merits of intervention, will want to see any such intervention made responsible to elected Members of Parliament.
The present Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
These men and women"—
members of the Price Commission, whose powers the right hon. Lady is now extending—
will be making law, day after day, every day, and we shall have less control over them than we have over the bureaucrats in Brussels." -[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 5th February 1973; c. 23 and 99.]
That is what right hon. and hon. Members opposite said last year. This year they are mute as the right hon. Lady extends still further the authority of this extra-parliamentary body.
On Clause 5, I shed no tears about the prospect of the demise of the Pay Board. The only tears I shed are for the one vote which, regrettably, I cast for its existence in the last Parliament. Enough has been said about the complete irrelevance and bogus nature of Clause 5, which is not needed to give the Government any power they require. But I say to the right hon. Lady and the Secretary of State for Employment that if they must include Clause 5 they had better hurry up and use it.
I urge the Government not to kid themselves. Within months, if not weeks, the great and good of the Civil Service establishment, the William Armstrongs and the Frank Figgures, will have them by the short hairs, and then they will find that they are not allowed to disband the Pay Board and that, if they have done so, they will be required to resuscitate it. My advice to the Government is to use their power quickly if they intend to use it at all, and that we shall be interested to see.
Before we proceed to give a Second Reading to the Bill we must have some light shed upon the present activities of the Pay Board. The board is getting itself into a considerable pickle in a number of directions. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House may have been interested to read of its activities in the case of English China Clays, where a company with excellent


industrial relations appears to be poised on the brink of an industrial dispute, where management and employees are on the same side, and where the Pay Board is pushing them over the edge.
I deplore the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment is not participating in the debate, because, above all, I want to hear what the Government propose to do in what is perhaps the most difficult of all the dilemmas facing the Pay Board at present. It is the situation of firemen in Glasgow Corporation.
In December a pay award was agreed with the firemen on a national basis amounting to upwards of 19 per cent. —substantially above that which was considered excessive for the coal miners and way above anything that was paid to any other group of workers in the country. Nevertheless, in its wisdom the Pay Board decided that this was within the limits of phase 3. Perhaps it was afraid that its voluminous files in Page Street constituted a fire risk.
In the case of the Glasgow firemen an extra sweetener was added in the form of a travelling allowance. Since then, with a good deal of prompting from one or two of us, the Pay Board has been gingerly moving towards making up its mind what to do about this. At the end of February, after sitting on it like a broody hen for weeks, it announced that it was under the impression that perhaps the travelling allowance was in breach of phase 3 and that it had it in mind to issue a restricting order in the middle of March. The middle of March came and went, and there was a deafening silence from the Pay Board.
Eventually, by dint of putting a Parliamentary Question inquiring about the dilatoriness of replies to hon. Members from the Pay Board, I elicited a reply from Sir Frank Figgures this week. He told me:
The Board has not yet issued a restricting order against Glasgow Corporation but it has received representations from the Corporation and the Fire Brigades Union. You will appreciate that the Board has to take a number of circumstances into account in reaching decisions about the issue of restricting orders and the possible recovery of past over-payments.
Yes, indeed, and the first and foremost amongst those circumstances that it has to take into account is the sheer lunatic impracticability of attempting to block a

payment which a group of employees in Glasgow has already been receiving for almost four months, let alone trying to recover from them what they have already been paid.
We cannot sweep this under the carpet. We must know what the Government propose to do. We have waited too long. The only sensible solution is for the Secretary of State for Employment to exercise his powers of discretion, as he did in the case of the miners, to resolve the impossible situation into which the board has got itself.
I refer finally to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said about the consequences of this legislation. I am not certain that I entirely share his analysis, because, as I see it, the most likely consequences of this legislation are, first, to create unemployment and, secondly, to remove goods from the shops altogether. I believe that those two consequences will increasingly go together.
I think that what happened to the Scottish Daily Express this spring and to the toilet rolls last autumn are pointers to what will happen to a wide variety of goods and employment as a consequence of this legislation. If I am right, it is possible that the ultimate consequences of the Bill may indeed be to abate inflation—not in the manner that the right hon. Lady has in mind but by adding to all the factors that the Government are gathering together now to generate, perhaps in 18 months, a slump which most certainly will cure inflation.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has made yet another moderate and sustained critical speech on the philosophy and practice of price control. I shall in due course turn to several of the points that he elaborated.
At the outset I should like to align myself wholeheartedly and without reservation alongside the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in deploring the arrangements that have surrounded this important debate. The Liberal Party may feel that it was dealt with somewhat scurvily over the procedural matters on the final day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. I hope


that it will be encouraged, from its experience on that occasion, to probe ways in which the House of Commons can repossess some better control over its affairs, particularly in circumstances where an executive no longer commands an automatically assumed majority in our debates.
I think that today's proceedings, where we have had one deplorable closure moved and where we have a debate of this significance and importance proceeding at this hour, indicate that there is scope for fairly aggressive parliamentary gamesmanship which I hope may be exercised by those, including the Liberal Party, who believe that there is an important rôle for the House of Commons to play. The rôle of Parliament in this piece of legislation, which touches intimately upon the relationships between the House and the executive and statutory bodies, such as the Pay Board and the Price Commission, is truly at stake.
I turn now to the main economic elements of the Prices Bill. For a measure which is sliding through in the dead of night it has precious few friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) thinks that it is totally unnecessary. His strictures have tended to be among the more moderate of the curses that have been laid upon it.
With whatever degree of enthusiasm we address ourselves to this topic, we at least are constrained to observe the canons of realism referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) in such a striking and agreeable maiden speech, for so much of the argument and of the contentiousness of this legislation is that it is a flight from realism. It is a flight from realism when the national situation all too much demands that we should face the circumstances, disagreeable though they be, of inflation which is edging towards Latin-American rates of intensity.
First, my objection to Clause 1 is that I do not believe that subsidies fight inflation. The case was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), but again if I may, in a most informal fashion, strike a friendly note with the hon. Member for Colne Valley, I thought that he was remarkably perceptive when he

talked about the clause being more concerned with fighting the retail price index. There is a difference between a contest over the retail price index and a contest over inflation, for one of the consequences is that we shall have debates of an almost medieval scholastic variety whilst we try to demonstrate whether subsidies on electricity have a greater or lesser impact on the retail price index than subsidies on milk.
What we know is that progressive subsidisation very often leads to a deterioration in the quality of service that makes the measurement of the retail price index itself increasingly suspect. That is something that can be tested in the experience of almost every hon. Member who has to use public transport in London. The price has remained constant, but the service has deteriorated. In saying that I cast no blame whatsoever on the employees of the public transport services in London. It is one of the consequences of the financial constraint that is placed upon public transport.
My fear is that when public expenditure is assayed at the accelerating scale that is envisaged in legislation of this kind it is all too likely to be found coincidental with the Budget deficit, and that is what we find in the circumstances of today, where the £700 million contained in Clause 1 is at the same time as a Budget deficit of £2,700 million.
The House would do well to dwell upon the wise words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) when he was still in Government and when he spoke in January of this year in the somewhat more congenial clime of the London Hilton Hotel. He said:
The Government cannot escape responsibility for commercial policy and the exchange rate which has an impact on domestic costs. Nor can the Government avoid responsibility for maintaining the right fiscal and monetary balance.
The charge that will be levelled, and levelled increasingly, will be that the policies are being conducted in circumstances that deny that correct monetary and fiscal judgment.
I hope that the coterie and the cosiness that are developing are not pressaging a second gag today, because I warn the Government that there are many pertinent and extended arguments that


could be made on the Money Resolution. I hope that we may be pre-empted from having to resort to strategems of those kinds to show that Parliament is not yet totally dead, bound and gagged at the will of the executive.

Mr. Ron Lewis: What about the Common Market Bill in the previous Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) is itching to make his own persuasive and long-awaited contribution. Heaven knows that the Bill has few friends. I do not wish to confine the hon. Gentleman to making interruptions from a sedentary position. I shall foreshorten my remarks so that he can give the House the full and wide-ranging contribution that I know he wishes to deliver.
If there is a second reason, particularly in the context of Clause 1, why I find this legislation unacceptable, it is that transfer payments of this variety can give effect to certain social value judgments and, therefore, can be an objective of a kind of policy that has in its connotation the social compact. Transfer payments of this kind are particularly inappropriate for trying to pursue social objectives.
If one is determined to expend sums of money of this magnitude on social objectives, it is far better to use the system of cash benefits that is available either through retirement pensions or through family allowances, along the lines that were advocated in an admirable maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and have been long beloved of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). They are automatically subject to the one means and needs test which is widely accepted; namely, income tax itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus said that one consequence of subsidies of this character is that they have a corrosive and harmful and debilitating impact upon the industries affected. I agree that if one were making a blacklist of this kind of payment, subsidies to the nationalised industries are marginally more offensive than the food subsidies in the Bill. But he was a shade generous even on that score to the Bill.
One might assume that the Milk Marketing Board would welcome a milk subsidy which would increase liquid consumption, according to a parliamentary answer, by about 30 million gallons a year. But not so. The board issued a statement, following the Government's announcement, under the rubric
Milk Marketing Board Reaction to New Milk Subsidy",
in which it said:
This makes the relationship between the retail price and the true cost of producing milk even more unreal than it is at present. With milk production in decline at present, any large increase in demand for liquid milk will only accentuate the current difficulties of the dairy manufacturing trade and endanger future supplies of butter and cheese.
That immediate response shows the distortions which will result for manufacturing industry, which will be to the longterm detriment of consumers.
Clauses 2 and 3 also contain, in their own ways, provisions inimical to the good ordering of our domestic economy. The price control—either the direct ministerial control as sought in Clause 2 or the enhanced control through the Price Commission which is sought in Clause 3—are attempts to direct the money flow in the economy to the disadvantage of corporate profits. That is the only possible interpretation of the intent behind those two clauses.
There are grievous and dangerous trends in corporate profitability. I was going to quote from an editorial in the Financial Times, but under the strictures of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), who clearly prefers the doorstep wisdom that he acquires in his capacity as a Member of Parliament in contrast to what is to be read in the Financial Times, I will not quote that evidence. But I will quote the evidence proferred to the House by the hon. Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Palmer), who, speaking from his experience of the Co-operative Society, knows only too well the dangers to the levels of profits in the food manufacturing and distributing industries in this legislation and the adverse impact that that can have upon investment in those industries.
Clause 3 provides for the most wide-ranging powers for the Price Commission


and the Secretary of State. The very phraseology is daunting:
If…there are exceptional circumstances justifying intervention…the Secretary of State may direct that the powers conferred on the Commission by section 6 of that Act shall be exercisable…".
The powers in Section 6 of the Act make it clear that the agency will be operating under the guidance of the code. In the operation of Clause 3 of this Bill, will these "exceptional circumstances" be subject to some broad guidance given within the code, or will they merely be something which is a hatch between the right hon. Lady and what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus called "a poodle"?
These are matters of great significance not merely for industry. A great deal of the debate has turned upon whether or not there have been adequate consultations with the moguls who comprise trade associations up and down the country. I am very concerned about the rôle and responsibility of this House in these matters. When the right hon. Lady sought to justify the parentage of Clause 3 she referred to paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. That is precisely the paragraph used by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to validate the miners' pay settlement. It was done in such a way—I make no objection because it was the discipline implicit in the Act, and the right hon. Lady knows that I was no warm friend of that Act—that it meant that there was no requirement on the Government to come to the House and say "The miners' pay settlement has been concluded on these terms. We know that these are terms of major significance and that the settlement is one of major significance to the economic affairs of this country deserving of debate in the House of Commons."
What was selected—by the nature of the legislation, perhaps the only selection—was a device which meant that the House never had as of right the authority to discuss a settlement of that magnitude. From that situation I conclude that it is something which ought not to be continued or persisted with; it is something which should alert this House to the need to ensure that in any legislation which we are asked now to authorise

the rights and the representations of the House shall be far better protected in the future than they have been in the past.
We see all too much evidence of the prospect of yet more commercial Star Chamber justice. We are only at the beginning of hearing many complaints about the arbitrary and capricious way in which the Price Commission sets about its duties and in which the Government will be intervening in the whole affair of retail prices.
The scepticism which many of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate have shown is extremely well founded; but it is a scepticism which was to some extent foreseen by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East when making the speech to which I have already referred. With all his authority as a senior Minister in the former Conservative Government, he said
But price controls, by themselves, can only blot out inflation—if indeed they can—where they are accompanied by pervasive controls over production, external trade, and other cost factors. Such total control impairs economic efficiency as effectively as it destroys the other aspect of a free society. This is one of the reasons why, after our latest experience of statutory controls, I remain, today as in 1970, fully aware of their limitations.
The instincts and preferences of my right hon. and learned Friend are good enough for me.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has made a powerful speech, and I shall add nothing to what he said about subsidies. I feel that that subject has been adequately covered. The Minister of State intervened earlier in the debate to ask how we on this side, who have supported some subsidies, could possibly oppose the measures now proposed. I am sure that all hon. Member recognise the risks in subsidies and the distortions which occur. What concerns us is that the greater the extent of the subsidies, the greated the distortions which follow. That is the troubling aspect of the present situation.
At this stage—especially at this time of night—what is needed is a constructive approach to the provisions of the Bill which give rise to real concern. First, I


take what the Secretary of State said to the effect that she will certainly take cognisance of industry's needs, and industry knows this. I wish that I could find a single person in industry who would agree with that statement.
The answer has already come from the Minister's own back benches. The cooperative movement is complaining about the way in which it is presented with documents, is given five minutes to read them, and is then expected to comment on them. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has told us of the views of the co-operative movement on the sort of courtesy and consultation which it received over this measure.
I find that reaction reflected widely in industry. Although I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry said about the need for Parliament to exercise its responsibilities, I believe that one of Parliament's responsibilities is to see that those affected in industry have a chance to have their views represented. It is essential that we do that in this case. One of the main concerns about the whole Bill, however, is that industry simply does not know what is involved and does not feel that it has been properly consulted.
I am interested to see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) on the Front Bench. I am amazed that he shows his face here on a Bill of this kind when he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had so much to say in the last Parliament about extra-parliamentary controls. This is a Bill for which he, as a member of the Government, must share responsibility. If he has time to read it, it will give him the shock of his life to find that it extends yet further the scope of extra-parliamentary control.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heller): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain the line of argument which he was developing on those occasions. He was then defending his Government hook, line and sinker on the whole question of a statutory policy on prices and incomes, on controls and on the Counter-Inflation Bill. I do not remember that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who argued quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman has double standards.

Mr. King: That is quite untrue. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said at the beginning of my speech, he will see that I supported what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry had said on the subject of subsidies, and I said that I would add nothing to what he said on that point. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in. The debate has lasted for some time, and several of these matters have already been covered.
I have supported the need for price controls. The hon. Gentleman had been totally opposed to the development of extra-parliamentary agencies, and for him to intervene now on a Bill which yet further extends the rôle of extra-parliamentary agencies, against which he fought so bitterly in the last Parliament, shows that it is he who has double standards. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Employment should associate himself with this Bill, after being one of the loudest critics of extra-parliamentary control.
Industry is concerned to know just how the powers in Clause 2(1) and Clause 3 will be used. There is no advice on that. I assume that maximum prices will certainly apply to subsidised foods, a point dealt with by the Secretary of State. She also said something to the effect that they would apply in cases where a voluntary agreement had been reached on margins. Will the Minister amplify what was meant by that when he replies? Will he clarify what goods are envisaged under "other goods", and may we have an assurance that no company will have prices fixed below the terms set out in the loss and low profit conditions in the Price Code.
The difference between these proposals and the proposals of the last Government is that the Conservative measures were accompanied by a code with guidelines so that industry at least knew the yardsticks that would be applied. I do not share the total objection to price control expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry. I regard it as a second best and I would prefer a voluntary policy. That position has frequently been stated by my right hon. Friends in Government. But I recognise, as did the Secretary of State, that there is an acute problem throughout the world and it needs exceptional measures to deal with


it. The Conservatives, however, brought in measures with a book of reference so that industry knew where it stood. These proposals are blanket proposals with no code or guidance, with total power vested in the Secretary of Slate to take action and with no clear guidance to industry on what path will be followed.
I trust that any measures that are introduced under Clauses 2 and 3 will be the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure proper parliamentary control. I am not surprised that Labour Members, as much as my hon. Friends, take gross exception to Clause 3(4), which is the most blatant piece of retrospective government I have seen in any Bill.
The Secretary of State referred to possible amendments to the Price Code. I have had strongest representations about the 10 per cent. cut in profit margins. It seems harmless enough in the case of a firm which is making a 20 per cent. gross margin. A 10 per cent. cut brings it down to 18 per cent. But if that firm earns only a 2, 3 or 4 per cent. net margin this could cut its earnings in half, and this could well apply in the case of a small shopkeeper. If the shopkeeper's gross margin is to be cut in that way at the same time as rates are increased—in my constituency by as much as 80 per cent. —only one course will be left open to him, to close down, and this is the position for many people who keep the corner shops. It may be the only shop within the reach of old-age pensioners and handicapped persons, or of the young mother with children who does not have the opportunity to go to the big supermarket. Many rural parts of my constituency have not supermarkets. The increase in rates and a Government-imposed cut in margins coming at the same time could have the direst consequences, and a measure which was conceived to try to halt price rises or to reduce prices might have the opposite effect of raising the cost of living for many people.

12.55 a.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We have had an interesting and closely argued debate. The number of hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate, even at this late hour, have borne witness to that.
A number of valid and valuable points have been raised by my hon. Friends,

and some interesting points have been raised by Labour Members. Some highly original points were raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), while the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was a veritable Pied Piper for his own parliamentary party. But I am sure that many hon. Members enjoyed his contribution.
However, I should like to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) for his charming and thoughtful maiden speech. His quotations from Ruskin were beautifully delivered, and both his manner of delivery and the content of his speech commanded the attentive admiration of the whole House. We look forward to his future contributions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be a most valuable Member.
It was clearly expressed throughout the debate that most hon. Members on both sides of the House support the fundamental objectives of the Bill. The need to provide special help for certain consumers at a time of exceptional inflation is undisputed, but the means of providing it has been disputed most eloquently by some of my hon. Friends. Equally, there is a need to ensure that any measures introduced as a result of the powers given in this enabling legislation are administratively fair, practical, likely to be fully effective in pursuing the interests of consumers, and not detrimental to those interests, either directly or indirectly. I hope that those objectives commend themselves also to both sides of the House.
We have already questioned the wisdom and the effectiveness of the allocation of resources by those indiscriminate subsidies which have already been given. If I may bring my own simile to the debate, the giving of indiscriminate subsidies is rather like taking a machine gun to shoot a rabbit. Most of the shot goes very wide of the target. In any case, those subsidies that have already been given have already been more than offset for the average family by the deliberate price increases introduced by the Government. What the right hon. Lady has given with one hand her right hon. Friends have taken away with the other.
Over and over again the right hon. Lady has spoken of the value of her subsidies to pensioners and poorer families


in particular. The Bill refers to necessities affecting the cost of living of people with small incomes. We all accept, and always have done, that there are compelling social priorities. But I question whether expensive indiscriminate subsidies are the best way of meeting these priorities. Like my hon. Friend, I ask whether a form of family allowance increase would not have been more effective.
Be that as it may, during the General Election campaign the average housewife was clearly given to understand by the Labour Party that she would be the focal point of any attack on prices. Nobody questions the need to help poorer families, but it is now clearly established that the average housewife has been misled and let down by the Government. She is not better off but worse off, and is likely to be even worse off as time goes on. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks from a sedentary position what my Government did. I have here a reply to a Question from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It tells the House exactly what the previous Government did. We raised real personal disposable income by 14¾ per cent. when we were in office. I shall be surprised if the present Government, if they are in office long enough, are able to raise the standard of living to the extent that we did and at the rate that we did.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan): Does the hon. Lady agree that during the last few months of the previous Government disposable income dropped and that we inherited a downward trend?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I accept that there was a narrowing in the difference between average earnings and the cost of living. I accept that because that narrowing has taken place the Government are under some compulsion to consider what kind of measures they can introduce to try to halt the slide or to widen the gap. However, the present Government will not achieve a rise in the standard of living as fast as we did.
The counter-inflation legislation that we introduced approached the problem of regulating price increases by giving the Price Commission the power to ask in the case of an application for a price increase "Is it fair?". 'This legislation

goes a good deal further and allows the Price Commission and the Secretary of State to ask not only whether it is fair but whether an increase is acceptable in exceptional circumstances. If the answer is that it is not fair, for a variety of reasons that may have nothing to do with the business concerned, the commodity will be subject either to subsidy or to regulation. Clause 2 allows for no consultation and it takes no account of any argument as to fairness. It turns the Secretary of State into a kind of prices commissar.
Theoretically some businesses could be driven to the wall or to a point where the proprietors of smaller shops or businesses, would remove the goods from the shelves and not offer them for sale. In the case of other businesses, the shelves would be not restocked. Across the board there would be a reduction in choice for the consumer. That would clearly not be in the consumers' interest.
It is clear that the right hon. Lady intends to use her powers in Clause 2 in respect of fresh food. If she intends to do that by regulating meat prices, before long she will have to find a great deal more money to find subsidies to help families meet the expense of much more expensive imported meat because British producers will stop production. In the end it will be a case not of having to find more money to provide greater subsidies but of rationing, unless the right hon. Lady's right hon. Friends can find some way of helping producers more effectively than at present.
I should like to know whether any of the subsidy money which the right hon. Lady has left in her purse is likely to go to producers. I fully sympathise with many of the Bill's objectives. Where the question of acceptability is in the context of an emergency situation relating to inflation, that might be an overriding consideration. However, we shall want a great deal of convincing that there is no danger that the end result of allowing regulations to be imposed that take no account of possible counter-productive results would be detrimental to the interests of consumers in a number of ways.
We are faced with a piece of enabling legislation that gives wide and sweeping powers to the Price Commission and to the Secretary of State to make regulations


without giving anything but the merest hint what the form and content of those regulations is likely to be. I suspect that the right hon. Lady and her Department have not got very much idea either. We shall require a great deal more detailed information about their intentions in Committee. At present we are being asked to legislate blindfolded. Even now we are entitled to ask how practical and how effective this measure is likely to be. Similar measures have been introduced in Italy without very much effect, because the rate of inflation in Italy has been slightly higher than it has been in this country. For example, will the effects of increased costs or regulated prices mean that price increases will have to be imposed or passed on to consumers on other items which would otherwise have been subject to reductions? Will the average family have to pay for these measures which are aimed at helping the poorer families, although we accept the need to help poorer families?
Does the flexibility given in Clauses 2 and 4 mean that smaller traders are to be exempted? We have not yet had an assurance on that aspect of the matter. If so, will they, even then, be able to survive at a time of reduced liquidity, or will they suffer considerably as a result of an artificial intensification of competition, imposed by stringent price regulations in the larger shops and supermarkets, from which they are freed but against which they have to compete. Is this in the interests of the consumer?
In the election campaign many Labour politicians talked about the bulk purchasing of food and long-term fixed-price contracts and of how they would solve the problem of food prices. Indeed, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) argued this point on television with me. Yet I see no provision on this point in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in his reply will say whether members of the Labour Party have changed their minds. I see in the Bill no provision for long-term contracts or bulk purchasing of food, nor any possibility of it while the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister spoke at length about the display of lists giving maximum fair prices. So far as I can see—I may be wrong, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman

will tell us in his reply—the requirement to display lists is confined only to prices regulated under Clause 2, although they will be variable and on a multi-tier structure. In many cases will this not inevitably mean that prices will be levelled up to the maximum price lists?
The main labelling and marking requirements are in Clause 4. Clause 4(2)(b) is a seemingly puny version of our much more detailed legislation. It gives the Secretary of State wide enough powers to implement the objectives of our Bill—indeed the Bill gives her wide enough powers to do almost anything—but it gives little detail about intention.
Despite the vagueness of Clause 4(2)(b), the House will warmly welcome the fourth resurrection of this measure. Although a succession of obstacles hindered the measure in the past, it is clear that one cannot keep a good measure down, and I congratulate the right hon. Lady on reintroducing it. I am sure that in this respect the House will wish to be associated with a tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who in the Conservative Government was the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who between them contrived, with remarkable tenacity and initiative, to introduce the measure to this House no fewer than three times.
Although this Bill is a comparatively modest measure, it is welcome and will provide a useful signpost for consumers to help them find their way through the High Street jungle. I must add that it is a jungle that has been considerably pruned by the record number of significant measures on consumer protection introduced by the last Conservative Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is why you lost the election."] Some of the measures introduced by the Conservative Government are still working their way through to the consumer. The consumer have yet to feel the benefit of them. I am sure the right hon. Lady will be only too pleased to avail herself of the facility of the Fair Trading Act.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Lady accept that the previous Labour Government were exceedingly active in promoting consumer


protection measures? It is unfortunate that she seeks to make small party points out of such matters, because Labour promoted much more legislation on consumer affairs than did the Conservatives. We understand the problems of ordinary families whereas, I am sorry to say, the hon. Lady and her Friends do not understand them.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I understand that the hon. Lady has only recently returned to the House. Had she been in the House during the last Parliament she would have known that the previous Conservative Government introduced a record number of consumer measures, with the support of both sides of the House.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: They abolished the Consumer Council.

Mrs. Oppenheim: We set in its place a far more comprehensive structure in the form of the Fair Trading Act. If hon. Members care to look at the record they will see that we undoubtedly introduced more consumer measures in one Session of Parliament than did any other Government.
It it important to stress that the value of unit pricing is that it is complementary to prescribed quantities and that it will provide an alternative where the application of prescribed quantities is not practicable.
I agree with views previously expressed that wherever possible standard prescribed quantities are a better measure of protection for consumers, particularly in the case of fresh foodstuffs, toiletries, and many other household products. However, there is an urgent need to supplement this with informative labelling where it is not practicable to package in prescribed quantities.
Many fresh foods are already commonly bought unit priced, but in today's prepacked supermarket world fashions in merchandising have made it necessary to provide consumers, in the absence of standard prescribed packaging, with information not just as to the weight and price of the goods offered but as to a price comparison with a familiar standard unit of weight or measurement, to make prices more easily comparable without recourse to mental arithmetic for which the hon. Lady the Member for

West Bromwich, West and I share a dislike. This is never easy for many of us at the best of times, and is practically impossible with three talkative children in tow, a heavy shopping basket, or not much time, or a combination of all three factors, as is often the case.
I was careful to say that unit pricing will enable quicker and easier price comparisons, because it will not always provide value comparisons where the quality may differ in instances of the same product, but in the case of goods with which consumers are familiar or where the quality is common or is immediately obvious. Both price and value comparison can be made much more easily with the aid of unit pricing.
This is urgently necessary at a time of high inflation. Dare I say in the presence of the right hon. Lady that it will especially assiist those consumers who shop around? Perhaps I can disarm her dislike of this advice to consumers if I say that I entirely accept the point she has frequently made, that many consumers—particularly working wives—are far too busy to go from shop to shop, and that many elderly people are physically incapable of doing so. But I can assure her that for most consumers the process of shopping around is an initial one and that, having found a shop which consistently gives the best value and service, they tend to go to that shop on a permanent basis.
Together with prescribed quantities, unit pricing will help shoppers to make this choice more quickly and easily than they could otherwise do. They should not be misled into thinking that the final answer is in unit pricing and prescribed quantities. In the case of some products weight is not a true measure of value—for example, a smaller quantity of one detergent is stronger than a large quantity of another.
An extremely important rôle for unit pricing will be during the transition period to metrication. I am not sure whether the Bill provides, as our Bill did, that items can be marked in relation to unit in imperial or metric, or both. This is an important point, which I hope will be answered in the concluding speech.
Whether we move gradually to metrication or more rapidly—as most consumer bodies would like—I believe that


the transition period will be difficult for consumers and it will be helpful if they can compare during that period with units of weight with which they are familiar.
There is no specification in the Bill that unit pricing can apply to goods whether prepacked or otherwise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make the Government's intention clear, because we do not want to do anything to encourage extra packing which is costly and an environmental hazard.
I see no objection to the continued sale of fresh meat and vegetables, cheese and other basic foods in a loose form if they are clearly marked at a price per pound and if they are weighed in front of the consumer, with the unit price on the scale. When I am shopping I do not hesitate to ask for the goods to be returned to the scale if I think that they have been whisked off a little too quickly. I am not at all embarrassed about it, wherever I am shopping. I can understand that some consumers, particularly elderly people, may be diffident about doing so. This is why they have to be protected.
Clause 4(2)(b) gives no indication of the intentions of the Government about where the unit price is to be displayed. I hope that the Minister can tell us. In an earlier debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East mentioned three possibilities—labelling of the goods, labelling of the shelves or a list of prices adjacent to the shelves or at the entrance to the shop. I do not favour the latter. I do not think it would be very effective. A housewife who is busy shopping and who has to refer to a list on the wall to find a price will not do so.
There is another choice which would be far more acceptable—the splendid British-made computerised scale which shows not only the price and the weight but, in large neon letters, the unit price comparison. If the right hon. Lady has not seen this scale I hope that she will take the opportunity to look at it because it would provide an ideal solution.
We do not know whether the flexibility written into the clause will extend to exempting smaller traders. We shall want to know what the intention is. It

is important not to place a heavy cost burden on the small trader. This has been the subject of some controversy in previous discussions on our Bill.
Such people as the elderly, who cannot travel far, and the young wife with children, who cannot afford the bus fares into town, know perfectly well that there is one important safeguard provided for them in the corner shop. It is one which ensures good value and good service, which are what we associate with such shops. It is that such shops are dependent on local good will for their trading. It is the same now as it was in our grandmothers' time. They do not have the anonymity or the transient custom of the supermarket. If Mr. Jones at the corner shop says that the cheese is fresh and good value it had better be or he is out of business. Most of his clients live nearby, so there is no question of short-weighting them. He would soon be caught out.
Although no indications have been given by the right hon. Lady, it would be appropriate and welcome if the unit pricing regulations were to coincide with a number of additional regulations which are much needed in this area of prescribed quantities. We would like to know how soon after Royal Assent the unit pricing regulation will be introduced. What will be the period allowed for consultations? I understand that so far no consultation has taken place between the right hon. Lady's Department and those concerned. I accept the need for consultation, but I hope that the Government will produce draft recommendations as soon as possible to reduce the unavoidable interval between Royal Assent and the introduction of the regulations. There is no need to delay the regulations which could be amended later because of the need for harmonisation with any EEC prescribed quantities. This is a measure that will greatly benefit the consumers, all the more so when it is widely understood and used.
I welcome the provisions of Clause 4(2)(c) dealing with the need to give clear information to consumers on what element in the price is represented by VAT. I hope that the Bill will proceed swiftly to the statute book so that consumers can see for themselves just how much this Government have raised prices, not only


of petrol, confectionery and ice-cream, which is a nourishing family food. [Interruption.] We are not suggesting that ice-cream should be subsidised. We are saying that the price of ice-cream should not have been increased by the imposition of VAT, which is quite a different argument.

An Hon. Member: It was your tax.

Mrs. Oppenheim: We did not levy it on ice-cream or on petrol, both of which form part of family expenditure. We view with concern Clause 4(2)(a) and should like more information on it. We should like to know whether prices are to be marked by the manufacturer or the trader, and whether this might lead to a new outbreak of double pricing or appear to be a return to resale price maintenance.
I accept that consumers have a right to know what the price is before they remove the goods from the shelf. Here I take issue with the expertise of my hog. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). Some consumers—especially the elderly—are caused embarrassment and distress when they learn at the counter that the price is more than they expected to pay or more than they can afford. Most large stores and supermarkets already mark everything clearly.
The right hon. Lady mentioned her dislike of little sticky labels, but labels which carry the name of the shop facilitate the return or exchange of goods and are often useful in administration. In some cases the best method would be to stamp on the package both the name of the shop and the price, but this would not be practicable for unit pricing. and writing by hand would be expensive in staff time. I realise that there is no easy answer, but I expect that the right hon. Lady has given the matter a good deal of thought, and we should welcome an indication of her intentions.
I am greatly concerned that the unit pricing provisions in Clause 4 are an integral part of what are presumably intended to be temporary, emergency measures. Is the unit pricing clause, then, intended to survive on its own? Surely, it would have been more expedient to do what we intended to do—amend the Weights and Measures Act 1963 and make it a more permanent part of our legislation. Or are we to conclude that the pressure of costs in

industry, and world prices, will increase the cost of subsidies to such an extent that once having embarked on this course the right hon. Lady will have to keep on paying and renewing the powers in other parts of the Bill?
We shall also want to know how the provisions in Clauses 2 and 4 are to be enforced—indeed, how the whole Bill is to be enforced—in view of the shortage of weights and measures staff in some areas which was referred to by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West. The Bill is not encouraging. It mentions small increases in staff in particular weights and measures authorities. Are these increases to be in professional staff or in assistant staff?
Some of us recall the views expressed by the Minister of State before they were tempered by the responsibility of office. The hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent on this point in our debates in Committee and in the House on our Unit Pricing Bill—so eloquent that I must resort to quotations to do him justice. He said that my right hon. and learned Friend, who was then Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs:
confessed that he knew that South Wales had a severe shortage—that is, before the Consumer Credit Bill is implemented and before the Unit Pricing Bill is on the Statute Book.
He was referring to the shortage of weights and measures inspectors.
So there is a severe shortfall in relation to the duties that already exist. Yet we are imposing extra duties on the weights and measures inspectorate, and the Ministry responsible for consumer protection is unable to tell whether or not…it has adequate inspectorate to implement any regulations which it may put into effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th January 1974; c. 16.]
On Second Reading of the Unit Pricing Bill on 12th December, he said:
Parliament … is imposing extra workloads on the weights and measures inspectorate. It did so under Fair Trading…I find it incredible to have the admission today that the Department is imposing all this extra workload, does not have this information on the capacity of the weights and measures inspectorate …".
I find it incredible that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman was talking about one subsection of one clause of their Bill. He was not even referring to the additional work load imposed by the vastly more sweeping measures of Clauses 2 and


4 of this Bill which provides that there may be possible increases of some staff in some areas.
But even more incredible was the hon. Gentleman's reply to my Written Question yesterday, when I asked him how many staff were employed in weights and measures departments throughout the country. He said:
This is a matter for local weights and measures authorities, but I am asking for the information to be held centrally in my Department."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 14]

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Lady will bear in mind that consistently I made the point to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that he was unaware of the number of inspectors throughout the country. She will also bear in mind that we have just had a change round in local government and, therefore, we have had to get new information—information which the Department did not have before—on the complements of staff throughout the country, and the deficiencies. We are now getting information which the last Government never had.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I appreciate that point, but the end of my quotation from what the hon. Gentleman said on 12th December is:
The reorganisation of the local authorities will make no difference to their ability to recruit weights and measures staff because in many of the large authorities there are already serious shortages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December 1974; Vol. 865, c. 611]

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Lady must bear in mind that it makes no difference in their ability to recruit. It does mean that in the first couple of weeks of establishment of the new authorities it is difficult to get precise information. I am sure that even she will understand that simple point.

Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman made the point that it would make no difference because there was already a shortage. In most cases there has not been a reduction in the number of weights and measures inspectors employed. In most cases they have been absorbed into the county departments. In places where there are changes they have perhaps transferred from one authority to another. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman.

He has not been in office long enough to secure the information. I am glad that it is to be collected centrally.

Mr. Alan Williams: rose

Mrs. Oppenheim: Without it, the Government do not know whether they can enforce the Bill.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if the hon. Lady does not give way he must resume his seat.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman on other occasions but the hour is late and I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not give way again now.
The question of practicality is very important. Having listened to lectures from the right hon. Lady on silly advice to consumers, I think the silliest advice I have heard for a long time, which was not worthy of her, was her advice on television last Wednesday. She said that pensioners who did not want to buy a 14 oz loaf should ask the shopkeeper to chop it in half. Has the right hon. Lady any idea of the practicalities involved?
First, supermarkets sell mostly wrapped sliced bread and pensioners do shop in supermarkets. Can the House imagine the spectacle of an elderly pensioner with a queue building up behind her producing a loaf and asking the girl at the till to produce a carving knife and cut it in half? Very small shops will do it for very special customers and for very few people. But in the supermarket the girl would have to count the slices so that she would know that she was giving half. If the pensioner was in a small shop and asked the girl to chop a crusty loaf in half, the girl would have to have the judgment of Solomon because if she were only a few grammes out she would be contravening the Weights and Measures Act. The whole idea, however well meant, is not practical and is not worthy of the right hon. Lady. It is done in a very small percentage of cases only. I think that she should withdraw the advice.
We have cause to wonder what kind of practicalities will be behind the regulations proposed under the Bill. There are many aspects of the Bill which we view with concern, not least those which


will affect future expansion in the food industry and in food production. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley said, the Bill appears to have been thrown together in great haste and with very little thought as to the wider implications of how it is to be implemented. However, we do not propose to oppose its Second Reading.
Some hon. Members may be forgiven for thinking that Clause 5 is totally extraneous to the Bill, and many people will feel that it is detrimental to the interests of the consumer. It may be felt that it has been included with the express wish of provoking a Division. However, because the Bill has some potential for providing for some of the interests of consumers on a temporary basis in exceptional circumstances, and because of some of the welcome measures in Clause 4(2)(b), the Opposition do not wish to hinder it at this stage.
We shall want to look at it very closely in Committee. We shall attempt to amend it and, in the light of further information, we shall want to see how fair, practical and effective it is likely to be. Eventually, it will be judged on those three criteria.

1.31 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): This has been a long and wide-ranging debate, and I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) to the Opposition Front Bench. Her speech provided a refreshing change of direction from the way that the debate had proceeded earlier.
At one stage I had the impression that we were listening to a private battle over the mantle of Enoch which was being fought between the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), and even the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—

Mr. Tom King: Not at all.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman seems willing to continue the debate even now. In a sense, we felt privileged to overhear the hon. Gentleman's discussion.
I do not want to protract the debate unduly, in view of the lateness of the hour, by dealing in detail with the many important matters raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester, most of which can be discussed fully in Committee. I thought on a number of occasions that she tried to have the argument both ways. She asked probingly about the impact of subsidies. She said that we all wanted to help the poor, but she wondered whether the Bill would result in the average family having to pay for it.
I turn to felicitate the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on a maiden speech which earned the admiration of the House. He spoke eloquently of his constituency, where I am glad to say there is shortly to be opened a new consumer centre in a new shopping precinct which I hope to have the opportunity of visiting before too long. The hon. Gentleman spoke feelingly, and he awakened a response in this House to the need for the rich consumer countries to pay more attention to the needs of the poorer countries. He had the whole House with him.
One matter has recurred throughout the debate, and I feel that I should mention it straight away. It is the extent to which the proposals contained in the Bill have been the subject of consultation. My right hon. Friend has been Secretary of State now for five weeks. During that time she has had extensive consultations with a number of interests both about the proposed amendments and the operation of the Price Code and about the provisions of the Bill. She has met the CBI twice and the TUC. She has met the Retail Consortium, the Food and Drink Industries Association, a delegation from the co-operative movement, food manufacturers, and three separate consumer associations, as well as the bakers on three different occasions. It cannot fairly be said that my right hon. Friend has acted without consulting those interests most intimately concerned with the provisions of the Bill. But, lest there be any doubt, I can offer the assurance that it is her full intention that in bringing forward orders under this legislation the interests most directly affected will be consulted as frequently and in such depth as is necessary.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who opened the debate


for the Opposition, again raised the question which had been canvassed at Question Time last week about the division of departmental responsibility for prices. Although I thought this matter had been clarified, the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to suggest that he was not entirely clear about the position. I should remind him that on 4th April my right hon. Friend said:
While I have a general responsibility for consumer protection, and the measures I have proposed will help all consumers, there are for nationalised industries established, and in most cases statutory, arrangements for taking account of consumers' interests: the principal ministerial responsibility for these arrangements, as for nationalised industry prices, lies with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Environment, Energy, Industry, Scotland and Trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 414.]
On 5th April my right hon. Friend said:
The existence of my Department involves no change in the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy, Environment, Industry, Scotland and Trade in relation to the nationalised industries or their prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 4811]
I hope that that will clear up any remaining doubt about where the responsibilities within the Government lie.
The hon. Gentleman, in comparing the record of the previous Government in protecting the less-well-off members of the community with that of the present Government, also spoke of the increases in pensions in which he was proud to have had some part. He must accept that the increases in pensions which have been announced, and which we hope to receive power to implement tomorrow, will be the largest ever within the National Insurance scheme both in money and in real terms.
A large part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, as of the speeches made by a number of other hon. Members, related to the way that the money was to be raised to pay for the subsidies proposed in the Bill and, indeed, by implication, criticised some of the other measures which have proved necessary. In particular, he spoke of the burden of value added tax.
Hon. Members opposite have asserted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his indirect tax

changes announced in the Budget, has undermined the purposes of the Bill. Even in terms of the impact of the indirect tax changes upon the retail price index, that charge, in my judgment, cannot be made out.
We calculate that our programme of food subsidies will keep down the retail price index by 1·5 per cent. The rent freeze will contribute a further 0·7 per cent., giving a total reduction of 2·2 per cent. The tax changes announced will raise the retail price index by 1·75 per cent., thus leaving a net gain of nearly 0·5 per cent.
Nationalised industry price increases that have been permitted will add 2 per cent. to the retail price index by the end of the year but, as the House knows, and as the right hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) has admitted, these changes were made necessary by the accumulated cost increases incurred in the lifetime of the previous Government.
Lest there be any short memories, let me remind the House of what the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
At a time of the most acute energy shortage and in our present financial difficulties, it is anomalous—to say the least—that we are subsidising coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate. Unless action is taken on coal prices, the financial support required for coal, which exceeds £150 million this financial year, could easily be doubled next year. The subsidy for electricity is running at about £75 million a year, but that does not take account of the present emergency. Consultations with the industries on the price of coal and electricity will, therefore, be carried out as a matter of urgency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 962.]
Can anyone who heard those words doubt that if the Conservative Party had been the Government today it would have been forced to take action on the prices of nationalised industries?

Mr. Silvester: rose

Mr. Maclennan: No, the hour is late.
I must remind hon. Members who have spoken of the offsetting impact of the announced increases in the prices of the nationalised industries of the dilemma that the Government faced following the election when they discovered that these industries were facing large deficits—far larger than we were led to believe when


we came to office—generally as a result of their peculiar form of price restraint.
The Government had to judge the amount of subsidy that they could afford to pay to these industries and to which products and services the subsidies could best be directed to hold down household costs. The House will recollect that we are still expecting to support the prices of nationalised industries to the tune of £500 million in 1974–75, but we reached the conclusion that, in view of the greater importance of food in family expenditure and the experience of rapid food price increases over the last year, the first priority was to get a programme of food subsidies into operation, and we have not completely withdrawn subsidies to the electricity industry.

Mr. Silvester: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is making the point that the Government are seeking to provide subsidies on goods which pensioners buy instead of on goods which they do not buy. The figures given today by the Secretary of State for Employment show that the average weekly spending of pensioners on electricity, coal, sweets and cigarettes accounts for 11·9 per cent. of expenditure, while expenditure on bread, milk and butter accounts for 6·5 per cent. Similar considerations apply to households with incomes of less than £20 a week.

Mr. Maclennan: We are still subsidising most of the goods to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Tom King: What about tobacco and beer?

Mr. Maclennan: I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgwater is not suggesting that we ought to subsidise tobacco and beer.
The hon. Lady spoke of the impact of VAT on petrol. It has been suggested that the extension of the standard rate of VAT to petrol will put up distributors' transport costs, but that is not so. All registered traders recover from the Exchequer the VAT they pay on their inputs, and this will apply fully to VAT on petrol. One reason why the Chancellor applied the increase by way of VAT rather than revenue duty was precisely to ensure that it would not increase traders' transport costs. The increase

will fall only on the domestic consumer, the private motorist.
The hon. Lady and, in an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) spoke about price marking. Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to require the proper price marking of goods for sale. The trend in retailing to self-service stores makes price marking a virtual necessity for the shopper. But the use of this power will partly depend on the selection of products for subsidies and the regulation of prices and margins. The price marking powers will, however, extend beyond the goods likely to be covered by subsidies or price regulation, although naturally such goods will be early candidates for marking orders.
There has been considerable discussion inside and outside Parliament about the commodities to which unit pricing requirements might most usefully apply. Particularly strong candidates, I believe, are fresh meat, fish, fruit and vegetables and perhaps cheese. We are prepared to consider any further suggestions carefully. We shall discuss the use of these powers with the trades concerned and with consumer representatives. We certainly hope to frame the requirements so as to minimise increases in costs for retailers, and we will take into account particular trades or classes of retailer where such requirements might cause special difficulty, and order-making powers in the Bill give us the flexibility we need to do this. But I fully accept my hon. Friend's point that we cannot give a promise of a blanket exemption for small retailers. Unit pricing may be just as useful for customers in small shops as for those in large supermarkets.
The hon. Member for Southend, West showed some uncertainty about milk subsidies. It would be helpful if I reiterated our estimate of the cost of the subsidies already announced for milk, butter and bread for 1974–75. On milk, the existing subsidy introduced by the last Government is equivalent to about 1¼ per pint and will cost £148 million. The further reduction of 1p per pint from 21st April will cost £127 million, making a total of £275 million. The previous administration applied a subsidy of 2p per pound on butter. Half is financed from EEC funds, and the United Kingdom share this year will be


about £10 million. To this must be added £33 million for the new subsidy of 3½ per pound, giving a total cost of £43 million for butter.
The estimated cost of the new bread subsidy, which is equivalent to ½p on the price of large and small loaves, is £17 million. The total commitment for 1974–75 is thus £335 million. The provision in the Budget for subsidy is £550 million, so we still have about £215 million in hand.

Mr. Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that the sum of £700 million in the Bill will not be increased or that no request will be made for its increase during the currency of the Bill?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity earlier to develop his points. I will only give the undertaking that the sum will be limited to £700 million and that we shall not seek to extend the sum without parliamentary approval.
I must refer to the somewhat surprising remarks of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), as I understand that the Liberal Party proposes to dissent from the majority minority party. It is curious that Liberal hon. Members have taken such a critical attitude to the Bill tonight because in their party manifesto at the last General Election the Liberals called for price controls to be strengthened. In the Bill we have done just that. They referred to price control by absolute rather than percentage margins. Clause 2 gives us the power to do just that. I believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "1—recently spoke of a laxity in Clause 3. We have already proposed a number of urgent amendments to the Price Code to strengthen its rules. Clause 3 will give additional power for us to intervene when the rules throw up anomalous results.
In the light of those facts it is hard to understand why the Liberal Party finds it necessary to disapprove of the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when I went out of my way to commend Clause 2 and gave the very reasons that

he has just quoted. I also went to some trouble to point out that we on the Liberal bench intended to divide the House on the Money Resolution because that is germane to the subsidies, which is the part of the Bill to which we object.

Mr. Maclennan: In that case, we look forward to Liberal Party support on the principle of the Bill. I hope that we need not be too long delayed in dealing with the detail.
The Bill contains proposals which complement the Government's other initiatives to strengthen the effectiveness of the Price Commisssion its supervision of the Price Code which have already been announced. In the period prior to the election, the Conservative Party gave no undertaking that it would so seek to strengthen the machinery of price control. Some of the things which have been said tonight suggest that it would even have reneged on the extent of price control that we had. The Government have already published proposals in a consultative document for more urgent amendments of the Price Code. Urgent consultations have been taking place on these proposals. A more fundamental review of the Price Code will follow. Some necessary changes will flow from the activation of Clause 5, when the Price and Pay Code will become simply a Price Code.
The Bill should also be looked at in the wider context of the Government's action to tackle at once the social injustices in our society which uncontrolled inflation exacerbates. In moving rapidly —there have been complaints that we have moved rapidly—to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from the impoverishment and suffering which such inflation causes, we are acknowledging, both as a social necessity and as a political imperative, the priority of this task of Government. Although we are not deaf to the complaints of those who resent a policy of price restraint, we are asking the House for the powers contained in the Bill. That is why we have brought the Bill to the House so quickly. That is why the Government have already taken action to stop rent increases until the end of the year. That is why the Government have already proposed substantial increases in social security benefits, giving priority to the chronic sick, to widows and to pensioners.


Those measures can be seen together as part of a coherent strategy to enable the people of this country to unite to beat the inflationary forces which strike at not only the standard of living but even the coherence of society.
The proposals contained in the Bill will be recognised as both just and necessary. I therefore commend them to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRICES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment of food subsidies, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under that Act for the purpose of reducing, or preventing or limiting increases in, food prices in the United Kingdom ;
(b) any expenses incurred by any Government department in respect of the administration of that Act ; and
(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act:
Provided that the sums so authorised to be paid by virtue of paragraph (a) above, together with any payment out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the year ending with 31st March 1975 in pursuance of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/73 or of any Regulation amending or replacing that Regulation, shall not in the aggregate exceed £700 million.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

1.55 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Will the Minister confirm that the moneys payable under the Money Resolution—the £700 million—are restricted to payments during the financial

year 1974–75, and that it would be wrong or illegal to provide any money for 1975–76 under the Bill? Indeed, if food subsidies were to be continued beyond the end of 1974–75, would not a new Bill have to be introduced and enacted?
In view of the Under-Secretary's commendation of the Bill in such glowing terms, as an act of major social justice and a contribution to the reduction of the rate of inflation, I find it curious that these blessings should be restricted to a period of one year. What will happen is that at the end of one year the money will have run out and we shall have a 2·2 per cent. increase in the cost of living on top of the 15 per cent. or 18 per cent. which will already have taken place during the year.
I ask the Government, therefore, much though I dislike the principle of the Bill and the subsidy clause in particular, why they have limited the Money Resolution powers to one year. Is it something to do with electoral considerations? Are food subsidies to last only until the next election, or do the Government think that in some way the price of food will come down? I am asking these questions because I do not know the answers. Are the Government trying to fool the people that this puny Bill will make a contribution for more than a very short time, and at the end of that period all will have to be recouped?

Mr. John Gorst: If it is intended that the subsidies will apply in a later year, is the Minister satisfied that they will be adequate, granted the rate of inflation which, at the very outset of her speech, the Secretary of State said was likely to run at the rate of 18 per cent. or 19 per cent. this year? Will there not be a shortfall of about 18 per cent. or 19 per cent. on the £700 million which is required? May we be told whether the bill is really £700 million, or twice or three times that amount?

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Minister, in addition to answering the questions already put, elaborate somewhat on the response which the Under-Secretary gave to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) during his rather inadequate speech on the Bill? The hon. Gentleman announced that the £700 million covered by the Money Resolution


was all that the Government had in mind at present, but, of course, they might come forward for more. Are we to understand that they would be obliged to come forward by means of another Bill before the conclusion of the current financial year? If the £700 million is exhausted before then, would they be able to operate by order? That is something which the House is entitled to know. To most of us it is clear that the £700 million will not last for many months at the present rate of progress.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I share the concern of my hon. Friends on the question whether £700 million provided in the order will be enough. There seems to be confusion on the Labour benches as to the amount of money that will be needed in order to pay for the subsidies. This confusion is compounded by the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 26th March, when he said
The provision already allocated "—
that is, for food subsidies
for this for 1974–75 by my predecessor was £50 million".
He then said
I believe that in the current year"—
that is the year to which the order relates
it would he right to spend about £500 million extra on food subsidies on top of the limited existing provision I have already mentioned." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 297]
Here was the Chancellor, on 26th March, saying that the amount of the food subsidy would be £500 million over and above the £50 million provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when he was Chancellor.
The Bill increases the amount from the £500 million mentioned by the Chancellor to £700 million. [Interruption.] If that is the increase which can take place —[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members want to get to bed—[Interruplion.] We are anxious to be clear on

Division No.11.]
AYES
[2.4 a.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Brown,Bob(NewcastieuponTyne,W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E S
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchanan,Richard(G' gow,Springbrn)


Bates, Alf
Booth, Albert
Butter,Mrs.Joyce(H'gey, WoodGreen)

the Government's thinking. If the figure has escalated between 26th March and 3rd April from £500 million to £700 million, how can the Government be satisfied that the allocation they are making is correct?

2.3 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): After listening to the interventions of the Opposition I find myself more confused than ever. Hon. Members did not seem to have listened to any of the explanations given from these benches. In reply to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), I thought we had made it clear time and time again that the total sum in the Bill was £700 million, which is a cash figure. It does not, therefore, alter when prices go up and down. That is the usual practice, which, as far as I know, has not been changed.
As for the question about the life of the Bill, it provides powers for 1974–75 and a total sum of £700 million. Once that sum is exhausted, new powers will have to be sought. During the debate Conservative Members called for just such a parliamentary scrutiny and I find it strange that they should question it now. Clause 2 states that the law will last until 31st March 1975 and is extendable by order, if the House so approves, for one year to 1976.
I found it impossible even to begin to understand the intervention by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He should, perhaps, have done a little more homework before keeping the House up so late. I do not know why he referred to £50 million being provided by his right hon. Friend the former Chancellor. The previous Government committed £190 million in subsidies. The difference between £700 million and £190 million is £510 million, and I commend that sum to him.

Question put:—

Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John
Perry, Ernest G.


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Phipps, Dr. C. B.


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfleld, Leslie
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Price, William (Rugby)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Cocks, Michael
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss J.


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin
Roberts Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Greville
Roberts, G. E. (Cannock)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Jay, RI. Hn. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, G. (Chorley)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Johnson,James(K'ston upon Hull,W)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Cox, Thomas
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rooker, J. W.


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham,G.(Isl'ngt'n,S&amp;F'sb'ry)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham,Dr.JohnA.(Whiteh'v'n)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, E.


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Sedgemore, B. C. J.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Kilroy-Silk, R.
Selby, H.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kinnock, Neil
Shaw, A. J. (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Latham, A. (City of W'minster P'ton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, G. (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small. William


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Smith. John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Loyden, E.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Stott, R.


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edge, Geoff
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
MacFarquhar. R. L.
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thorn, S. G. (Preston, S.)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Faulds, Andrew
Magee, B.
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Rt. He. Eric G.


Flannery, Martin
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mayhew, Christopher(G'wh, W'wch, E)
Walker, T. W. (Kingswood)


Foot, Michael, Rt. Hn.
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mendelson, John
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mikardo, Ian
White, James


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Whitlock, William


George, Bruce
Molloy, William
Wigley, D. (Caernarvon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Golding, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland
Williams, A. L. (H'v'ring, H'church)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (H'tf' d&amp;St'nge)


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightslde)
Newens, A. S. (Harlow)
Wise, Mrs. A.


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Woodall, A.


Hardy, Peter
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice
Wrigglesworth, I. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, J. F.
Young, D. W. (Bolton, E.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David



Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hatton, Frank
Park, G. M. (Coventry, N.E.)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Heffer, Eric S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.




NOES


Beith, Alan
Howells, G. W. (Cardigan)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Biffen, John
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, R. (Colne Valley)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Ross, S. (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. David Steel and




Dr. Michael Winstanley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment of

food subsidies, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under that Act


for the purpose of reducing, or preventing or limiting increases in, food prices in the United Kingdom;
(b) any expenses incurred by any Government department in respect of the administration of that Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act:
Provided that the sums so authorised to be paid by virtue of paragraph (a) above, together with any payments out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the year ending with 31st March 1975 in pursuance of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/73 or of any Regulation amending or replacing that Regulation, shall not in the aggregate exceed £700 million.

WAYS AND MEANS

PRICES

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment of food subsidies may make provision—
(a) for requiring payments to be made to the Secretary of State in respect of goods exported from the United Kingdom which consist of or contain food in respect of which payments have been made by the Secretary of State under the Act ;
(b) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to the Secretary of State in pursuance of any such requirement.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ORKNEY ISLANDS SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED

2.16 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): I beg to move,
That the Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Limited, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.
The term "undertaking" is used in the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960 for an agreement made by the Secretary of State. A draft undertaking must be approved by this House where the payment of subsidy for a sea transport service is expected to be more than £10,000 a year.
The reason for the draft undertaking with the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Limited, for which the Government seek approval tonight, is that the existing undertaking, which was approved in

1961, needs to be changed to enable the company to operate from 1st April 1974 with Government subsidy in the South Isles of Orkney as well as in the North Isles. It was not possible to have this draft undertaking approved before 1st April because of the General Election. No payments have been made in respect of the services since 1st April. Nevertheless, it is necessary that the undertaking be brought into effect from 1st April so that Government financial support for the services may be available without interruption. The amount of money that will be spent in 1974–75 under the agreement is about £135,000, of which £22,000 is needed for the service to the South Islands. Up to the present the South Isles have been served by vessels operated by the Bremner Company, Stromness, the proprietors of which wish to retire. With the approval and encouragement of the Department, they arranged to sell their business with effect from 1st April to the Orkney Island Shipping Company so that that company might carry on the shipping service in the South Isles—a service that is of vital importance to the community there. The retiring partners in the company are Captains Gray and Hourie, who have carried on this work for 35 years. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for the service they have given over that long period and to wish them both a long and happy retirement.
The intention is that the OISC should assume responsibility for the South Isles as well as for the North Isles service. The only change of substance in the draft undertaking before the House is the substitution of the words "Orkney Islands" for "North Isles of Orkney" in order to make this possible. Otherwise, the draft undertaking, with some minor and drafting changes, is the same as the undertaking with OISC now in force approved by this House on 11th December 1961. There are some minor changes in wording in the undertaking. but I do not think I need to explain them at this late hour. I commend the undertaking to the House.

2.19 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: At this early hour of the morning, I shall say only a few words about the undertaking that is now before the House.
I wish to say how glad I was to hear the Minister of State compliment Captains Hourie and Gray on their long service to the shipping service in the South Isles of Orkney. Shipping and transport of all sorts are absolutely vital to my constituency. To bring that factor home to the House, I should mention that at this very moment there are 40 to 50 people stranded in Shetland who have been there since last Thursday, and probably half that number have ben hoping to go from Orkney to Shetland.
We are faced with another increase in freight charges. I listen in the House to speeches about increases in the prices of bread and milk. Unfortunately, we have had to pay these higher prices for some time in Orkney and Shetland. Therefore, there is no subject of greater importance to my constituency than freight and transport.
The undertaking enables the Orkney Islands Shipping Company to take over the services to the South Isles. These services have been conducted by two vessels—the "Hoy Head" and the "Watchful", which are very near the end of their time. I should like to know how and when they are to be replaced. Not only are these services essential to the existing population of the South Isles, but one of the South Isles—Flotta—is designated as an oil terminal. We want to know what services are to be available in years to come for local inhabitants and tourists, and for the oil industry. In my view these two vessels, though old, have given extremely good service, and the captains who have been running them deserve full praise. Captain Hourie is staying on, although Captain Gray is retiring
I should be glad to have some information—not necessarily now—about the implications of the undertaking in relation to the renewal of the vessels. Clause 15, 4(a) refers to the accounts and says that any expenditure of a capital nature shall be excluded. I take it that is meant to he for accounting purposes, and that the Government will give consideration to the replacement of these vessels.
There is also the question of the freight charges, which are of vital importance, as well as the question of the air services.

As the Minister of State will be aware, we now have internal air services around the islands of Orkney and a landing strip on Longhope, and these are connected with the Orkney Islands Shipping Company.
I seek an assurance that the Government intend to maintain both air and sea services not only at the present level but at a level which will help developments in Flotta, Longhope and Hoy, and, we hope, on the island of Graemsay, in accordance with the possibilities of those various islands.
I think I am correct in saying that it was at the behest of the Bremner Company that the takeover has been arranged. I also believe I am right in thinking that there were other possibilities, that other companies had shown interest in these services. The amount of Government support forthcoming depends on the profitability or otherwise of the services and that in turn must be examined in relation to the overall activities of the services. The Government have a right to examine the books and so forth.
While this may be the most satisfactory arrangement at the time, there are signs in Orkney and Shetland that other companies are interested in our services, and we would not like to feel that these companies are being shut out in any way. I do not for a moment suggest that the undertaking does that, but the whole situation is changing with the advent of oil and the increase in the tourist trade.
These are the three points which I particularly want to make. The first relates to the question of the renewal of the vessels, the second to Government aid in keeping down the freight charges and maintaining and improving existing services, and the third to the possibility that in future new services may conceivably be available.
Captain Gray and Captain Hourie have performed great feats in keeping these boats going, and we certainly wish Captain Gray well in his retirement. We trust that Captain Hourie, who I think is continuing for some time with Bremner and Co., will have a further profitable spell of duty in the Flow. I welcome this undertaking in that it keeps services going. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the points I have made.

2.27 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: It appears from the Order Paper that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet considered this undertaking. The Committee considered it this afternoon and is asking the Department for an explanation of the absence of a monetary limit on the advances and loans which are to be made by the Secretary of State. This draft undertaking comes before the House for approval because the Secretary of State wants to advance to OISC more than £10,000 a year.
The Minister has told us that it will run into a figure of about £135,000. The Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960, under which this undertaking is made, provides, under Section 2(3) that
Where the Secretary of State proposes under this section to make to any person in any financial year any advance which, by itself or taken with any other advance made or to be made under this section to that person in that financial year, exceeds in the aggregate the sum of ten thousand pounds he shall do so only in accordance with an undertaking a draft of which (including the terms and conditions upon which the undertaking is proposed to be made) has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House thereof.
The Act does not require the undertaking to fix a limit, but I would have thought that the whole purpose of bringing the undertaking before us for approval is to allow the House to see a limit on the amount of money which the Secretary of State is to advance, either by way of grant or loan. How can an undertaking sensibly include the terms and conditions upon which the undertaking is proposed to be made, which is what is required by the Section, without stating the limit of the grant?
The grant is limited in the undertaking itself only by the wording of paragraph 11, which says:
the Secretary of State undertakes to pay to the Company by way of grant in each year ended Thirty-first March…after the commencement of this Undertaking such amount as may be agreed from year to year between the Secretary of State and the Company to be the annual estimated loss incurred in providing the Approved Services …
Loans are dealt with in paragraph 14, whereby the Secretary of State can make such loans as he considers "expedient". Having approved this undertaking in its present form the House has no further control over the amount which the Sec-

retary of State will grant or advance. I do not see what the point is of the Secretary of State coming to this House or being obliged by the Statute to do so if he is then given a blank cheque. I would have hoped that some limit would be put in the undertaking, so that the House might know the amount which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he had it written in the undertaking the House would be assured that the expense was not excessive. Surely "terms and conditions" as mentioned in the section I have quoted, must mean the amount and the House should know what the maximum amount is to be.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I welcome the undertaking and endorse the references that have been made to the fine record of the three companies mentioned in it. The companies operate in exceptionally deep waters, yet they keep going an essential service extremely well. The seamanship of the captain and crews mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is of an exceptionally high order.
Transport by air and sea is most important in the Orkneys and Shetlands, and I am glad that the Conservative Government played their part in assisting the companies, whether in the provision of vessels, harbours or other facilities. This was set out in the debate on 16th January on the Scottish shipping services.
We wish the new services well and hope that they develop with the vast increase in commercial and oil drilling activity in the Orkneys and Shetlands. I hope that the Minister of State will give us as much information as he can about the rise in freight charges.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Millan: I shall give further consideration to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), but I shall answer him now by referring to what has happened with similar undertakings given under the provisions of the 1960 Act.
As I said in opening, up to now there has been an undertaking to this company dating from 1961, and there have also been undertakings given under the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act to other companies, the most recent of


which was an undertaking in respect of MacBrayne's, which was introduced in December 1973. It has never been the practice in any of these undertakings to state the maximum amount of the Secretary of State's commitment.
The purpose of the provision in the Act is to provide that the Secretary of State shall not go beyond £10,000 in a year without an undertaking being given, and that is the aspect of parliamentary control with which we are here concerned. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that there is some logic in laying down a maximum. The maximum is laid down in terms not of a particular figure but of what the undertaking is meant to cover. The amount that is provided in discharge of the undertaking appears in the Vote on Account.
I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's point, which has never previously been made on an undertaking since the Act of 1960. That does not mean that it is not valid. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is Arguing that there is anything invalid in the undertaking or that it is defective, but I undertake to look at the point with reference to any future undertaking.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised several matters and I shall comment briefly on one or two of them. First, he drew attention to a circumstance which I accept completely, namely, that transport, whether by sea or air, is of particular importance to his constituency. I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept that this is recognised by the various special provisions, whether by way of the 1960 Act or otherwise, which are of considerable assistance to his constituency. The Government, like their predecessors, are anxious that support should continue to be given to transport services to his constituency in one way or another.
The freight charge position may not be as bad as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The increases in recent years have been comparatively limited. The last increase, dating from November last, was the first since 1968. It would not be true to say that there have been massive and continual increases in freight rates.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the replacement of the

two boats being used at present. I take the point, but he is aware that in the last year or so there have been discussions with the county council on the question of whether it would be willing to take over responsibility for the services. He knows better than most of us that it is the aim, following the Transport Act 1968, to have local authorities, with Government assistance, take over the responsibility for services which are vital to their own communities and which, basically, they are in a far better position to judge in terms of expansion, and so on, than the central Government are. It is in the context of that kind of discussion that one would consider the replacement of the boats and would be concerned with the question of improving or augmenting the services in future. We intend that these discussions should reach a fruitful conclusion.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he did not wish it to be felt that this undertaking carried any implications of shutting out competitive services introduced by other companies. From that point of view, the undertaking is neutral. It is of the essence of the matter that it is directed only towards one company. The essence of any such undertaking is that it must be related to one particular company providing particular services which, of course, have to be designated by the Secretary of State.
This undertaking carries no implication of shutting out future services, nor any implication that we would welcome entrants to these services in the sense of being willing to provide subsidy for them. If the matter arose the Government and the county council would be willing to look into it, but I do not think it arises on this undertaking, which is very limited and arises out of the situation that I have explained. By itself it has no direct effect on the services now being provided. We desire that there should be adequate services both by sea and air to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company Limited, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUST

2.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): I beg to move,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.
With permission, I shall deal at the same time with the draft Scottish Hospital Trust (Amendment) Regulations 1974, laid on the same date. Although these two instruments are quite separate and distinct in their purpose, they cover the same subject, namely, endowments to which the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971 refers. They replace or amend, as a consequence of health service reorganisation, existing statutory instruments, and it may be convenient if I first refer briefly to these earlier provisions.
Under the 1971 Act, endowments held by voluntary hospitals at 5th November 1946 and, from July 1948, vested in the hospital boards, were transferred, with minor specified exceptions, on 1st April 1972 to the Scottish Hospital Trust—a new body set up to hold and manage these funds and to distribute the net income from them in accordance with schemes made by the Secretary of State. The Trust was empowered to receive new endowments in its own right and to distribute the income in the same way. Further, it might accept for management purposes other capital transferred to it voluntarily by hospital boards. For income distribution purposes, the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972 was made. At the same time, the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972 were made to provide for such matters as exceptions from transfer, valuation of endowments transferred, and borrowing by hospital boards against the capital of the endowments.
It is these two statutory instruments that the two now being debated will replace or amend. The need to do this is a consequence of reorganisation of the health service in Scotland, which renders obsolete the references in existing legislation to hospital boards. Section 38 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, which came into operation on 1st April, transferred the rights in these endowments from hospital boards to health boards and also contained certain

provisions relating to distribution of income to which I shall return shortly.
Before dealing with the two instruments in detail, I should explain that in general they continue the effect of existing provisions. The only new features are in the draft scheme, and I shall make reference to these.
Paragraph 3 of the scheme continues the existing basis of income distribution —that is, £3 per bed per annum, plus a balance based on the amount of capital which was transferred to the Scottish Hospital Trust by the hospital boards which have now been succeeded by the 15 area health boards. However, there is in paragraph 3(a)(i) one new provision which will enable hospital beds in local authority institutions to be counted for the £3 per bed payment. I should perhaps mention that the State Hospital will continue to benefit to the extent of £3 per bed only because it did not contribute any capital to the trust.
Paragraph 4 provides for conditions as to the use of the income, and I should draw attention to the way in which we are giving effect to the requirement of Section 38(3) of the 1972 Act that the effect of the former income distribution should be retained. That is, although we now have health boards administering an integrated health service, this endowment income will continue to be used for hospital purposes or medical research. Further, groups of hospitals will continue to enjoy approximately the same level of income as they did when they were managed by boards of management. This is the purpose of paragraphs 4(3) to 4(5), which the House will note prescribe that 90 per cent. of the income being received from the Trust shall be allocated in this way. The groups which we determine for this purpose will correspond to the hospitals previously managed by the respective boards of management. We have provided a certain flexibility here because, although hospitals must be individually identified for this purpose, these details are changing from time to time as new hospitals open and old ones close, and it would be inconvenient to have to make a new scheme every time this happened.
When the endowments of which I have been speaking were transferred to the Trust, income which had been accumulated from these endowments was left


with the hospital boards. But no provision was made covering the use of these particular funds. We think that this should now be done, and paragraph 5 applies the same rules to the use of this money as will apply to income paid by the Trust.
The schedule contains certain special provisions laid down originally by the donors and still acceptable to the boards concerned. As we are required to do, we have consulted health boards and also the former hospital boards about the draft scheme. It has been accepted with very few comments.
I turn now to the draft regulations. Here I need only say that they in no way alter the effect of the 1972 Regulations, apart from omitting a provision no longer required in respect of a particular block of capital previously held by the Board of Management for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. Provision to enable the health board to withdraw these funds from the Trust for capital development is no longer required as the whole of the funds have in fact been withdrawn for such purposes.
For the rest, the regulations merely substitute appropriate references to health boards in place of references to hospital boards and provide for transfer of the rights and obligations which the 1972 Regulations placed on hospital boards.
I hope that the House will approve the two instruments.

2.47 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I regret that this is another matter that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments had an opportunity of considering only this afternoon. What puzzles the Committee is that the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972 still remains effective. It is not repealed by the present scheme that we are considering.
This scheme is made under the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971, and by that Act the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme was established in September 1971. Such endowments as have been given to Scottish Health Service hospitals before 5th November 1946 were transferred to the Scottish Hospital Trust in April 1972.
The Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972 was set up by statutory instrument

No. 391 of 1972 under Section 7(1) of the 1971 Act. The Scottish Hospital Trust was to distribute the income from the endowments among boards of management, regional hospital boards and State hospitals in accordance with the scheme set up by the statutory instrument No. 391 of 1972. Therefore, the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972 provides for the distribution of the income from these endowments to certain named boards of management and regional hospital boards which will no longer exist. But Part VI of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972—in particular, Section 40—requires that the Hospital Trust property, both capital and income, which was held in trust for the previous hospital bodies, shall be held in trust for the new health boards.
I submit that that keeps alive the trust scheme in the Statutory Instrument No. 391 of 1972. That statutory instrument is not repealed by the present scheme, because the 1971 Act did not give power to repeal the trust scheme. I think that was an error in the Act with which we are now faced. We cannot repeal it under the provisions of the 1971 Act or by this statutory instrument, so we have two schemes to some extent contradictory, still effective.
I suggest that the Secretary of State has a way of getting round this difficulty. He has wide powers under Section 61 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 which provides that he may
by order make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision…for giving full effect
to the reorganisation of health services in Scotland. I believe that the Minister could use those powers to remove Statutory Instrument No. 391 of 1972 from being effective—that is to say, to repeal it —and not cause the confusion of having two contradictory statutory instruments still effective.
I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking off the cuff but I do ask him to look at this carefully and see whether he can put matters right by using Section 61 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising this point. Our legal advice is the same as the right hon. Gentleman's, namely, that there is no


power in the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971 to repeal the scheme. The power is given to the Secretary of State only to prepare schemes from time to time.
The 1972 scheme, although it is still in existence, will, we believe, be inoperable because the hospital boards and the regional hospital boards no longer exist. The only continuing authority is the State hospital at Carstairs and the provision is carried forward for the payment of £3 per bed. Therefore, there is the point that the two schemes will stand as matters rest now.
Perhaps, in defence of the Government, I should point out that we were not responsible for the passage of the 1971 Act. Nevertheless, I take the point. We have had a chance to look only briefly at Section 61 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972. We shall look at that again, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the matter can be put right and it is thought necessary to do so we shall take the necessary action.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved

Resolved,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust (Amendment) Regulations 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of Housing in Wales the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provision of S.O. No. 64 (Meeting of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after Six o'clock.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

NOTICES OF MOTIONS, AMENDMENTS AND QUESTIONS

Ordered,
That a notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or

amendment, which is given after half-past Ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House:
That this Order be a Standine Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 8 (Questions to Members) be amended as follows:
Leave out lines 24 to 27.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]M

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Ordered,
That in respect of the National Insurance Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr.Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

THE BORDERS

2.53 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: Even at seven minutes to three in the morning I do not apologise for detaining the House for another half hour to debate the important matter of the progress of development in the Borders. On previous occasions when I have raised this subject—and it has not been all that frequently—I have usually had to begin on a note of gloom or complaint, and it is therefore a welcome change to be able to begin by looking back over recent years and noting that considerable progress has been made in the Border region in Scotland.
The Economist, in its survey of Scotland in November 1973, which was controversial in some respects, contained a section on the Border region headed "Boom in the Border "and rightly pointed out that part of the economic battle had been won, that unemployment was now lower that in much of England, that new investment was rising and that people were coming to the counties rather than leaving them. It concluded


that in the first six months of the operation of the Border build-up campaign, 400 families had returned to the Borders and another 2,500 families have said they are prepared to return as soon as houses and jobs are ready for them.
One reason for my seeking this debate is that at the moment in Scotland, quite naturally, there is overwhelming concern about development associated with North Sea oil. The Border region so far is not connected with this development and I am concerned that the proper impetus behind that development should not result in any loss of momentum in the continuing progress of economic development in the Borders.
I therefore welcome the Chancellor's decision to extend the payment of the regional employment premium, which I have always regarded as one of the most effective means, as did the Select Committee, of encouraging regional development. This is not a specific Scottish Office responsibility and I do not expect an answer tonight, but I hope that the REP will not, as in the past, just continue to be paid indefinitely; I hope that it will be adapted as an instrument of economic development in two respects.
First, it should be used as a deliberate weapon in the Government's armoury to help those parts of the country, such as the area I represent. where wage levels are, on the whole, well below the national average. Second, it might be extended beyond the regional concept that it had when introduced, in association with the selective employment tax, to the service industries in general and particularly to agriculture. I hope that this will be considered in the Government's national policy.
If there is a complaint at the moment about development in the Borders, it is that the housing programme has been allowed to slump. This more than anything else is crippling future development prospects. From a high peak of 709 houses completed in the public sector in 1970, the number fell last year to 231, the lowest figure since 1964. This is regrettable, particularly because it has happened both in the local authority sphere and among those houses completed by the Scottish Special Housing Association.
A number of factors contribute to this. One is that, until recently, the tendering procedures of the SSHA were such that, in a time of inflation and shortage of building materials, it was difficult for it to obtain realistic tenders for relatively small schemes. That matter has now been put right, but there is a need for far faster processing of housing demand from a given area in association with the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office and through to the SSHA. In the last couple of years I have found more than once that a good deal of prodding has to be done to get accepted a future need for housing that cannot actually be shown from hard figures for a particular firm at any given moment.
We had a regrettable incident in Peebles when part of the production of an American company went back to the parent company because the housing which had been expected was not available. We have had the threat of a repeat of that experience in Jedburgh which I hope will now be avoided by the recent decision to build further SSHA housing there. But there is something far wrong with the time lag between the demand for housing in any given town and the actual supply of that housing. If there is anything the Minister can do to look into this and speed it up I shall be extremely grateful.
As a Member of Parliament I am finding now, as I found when I first came to this House, that my daily mail contains the sorry story of local people unable to get houses—people about to be married, people leaving tied cottages and people who are retiring. There is a great danger that unless local authority programmes are maintained alongside the increased SSHA programme there will be once more that unhealthy rivalry between the claims of the local people and those of outsiders coming in to meet industrial expansion. I consider the lack of housing and the drop in the programme to be the most disturbing feature of economic life in the Border area.
Perhaps I may refer to the Tweedbank development. I hope that it is not the case—it may be—that the natural concentration of both the Scottish Office and the SSHA on the projected development at Tweedbank has diverted attention off


other similar schemes elsewhere. I understand that the programme for Tweedbank is running slightly behind schedule. I wonder whether the Minister can give up-to-date figures on that. Will he also assure me that all departments in the Scottish Office will be co-ordinated in the Tweedbank project? We have already experienced the primary school at Tweedbank coming out of the 1974 instead of the 1973 allocation because it had not been realised it would be started in 1973. There is some concern that the community services—for example the community centre—will not be available at the same time as the housing. It would be regrettable if that were so.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of Tweedbank may I ask him whether he is aware of some of the dangers that exist from the whole concept of the project, not so much to the part of the Borders around Tweed-bank but to the outlying counties, such as Berwickshire, in my constituency? Is he aware that there is a great danger from the Tweedbank concept, that industry will be attracted solely to the Tweedbank complex and that this will cause damage to the aspirations of towns such as Greenlaw, in my constituency, which are desperately in need of industry? There is also a danger that if Tweedbank goes ahead as presently planned, it will drain both labour and materials away from viable communities within the outlying counties and will render them unviable.

Mr. Steel: I accept the point that there is a danger and it would be a matter of concern if the Government and the local authorities in the area were not determined to avoid that happening. I have always believed that Tweedbank need not be a rival to the expansion of the existing communities and the fact that a town like Peebles has enjoyed considerable expansion during the time that Tweedbank has been under consideration shows that what I am saying is true.
The figure I quoted earlier, of 2,800 families still on the Border build-up books as willing to go into the area, shows that there is a considerable reservoir of incoming labour which could be attracted

to Tweedbank and which need not be derived from other Border communities. However, I agree that if one of the consequences of Tweedbank were to drain population from established communities in Berwickshire or elsewhere it would run against the whole ethos of the scheme.
I turn now to the development of the new hospital to serve the area. Part of the housing at Tweedbank will, I imagine, be taken up by the hospital staffs as they move into the new site adjacent to Tweedbank. The previous Government—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in his place at this late hour —made the welcome decision to speed up the building programme for the new hospital to replace Peel Hospital. In a letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to me when he was Minister in December last year, he gave me certain reassurances on the timetable which it was proposed to adopt for the new hospital.
The pointed question which I put to the new Minister of State is this. Are the present Government adhering firmly to that timetable? It may be a rather unfair question, since the new area health board has been in office for only a matter of days, but in December I was certainly given to understand that it was the Government's intention that the new hospital would be provided within about six years. May we still expect that timetable to be adhered to, and shall we see the hospital ready for occupation by the end of 1979?
I turn now to the question of transport and road developments. I refer first to the recent decision of the Scottish Office on the routeing of the A7 trunk route through Galashiels. I greatly welcome the decision that this is not now to be routed—as had been planned for some time—through the centre of the town. I am sure that this is widely welcomed in the town. But the new proposed line along the railway line and through the old railway yard raises a secondary problem, in that it will run through or adjacent to a new industrial site, and there are at least two major and several minor applicants for factories on this site at the moment who have been pressing for some time to get access to the site.
On 25th March, I asked a Question about the new line of route of the A7


through Galashiels, and the Secretary of State gave the not very precise reply:
I hope to publish proposals later this year". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 54.]
May I press the Minister of State about that now? I am not saying that there has been delay—I do not think that there has been, and obviously it takes time to work out the precise line of route—but is the hon. Gentleman seized of the urgency of the matter and of the demand for the placing of these factories now? Every week lost literally means a week lost of potential production and employment in the area. Will he give a more precise guide as to when we shall have the line route of the trunk road through the town?
I now go further south on the same trunk route—the A7 at Hawick. As the Minister knows, the Hawick working party, in which his Department has played an important part, has recently recommended that trunk traffic should be removed from the High Street of Hawick to west of the river. The working party in its report cast some doubt on whether the cash would be made available to translate this ideal into reality. Is it the intention of the development department to finance the removal of the trunk road from Hawick High Street?
Next, what is the Department's view now on the evidence given at the public inquiry into the proposed reconstruction of the Drumlanrig bridge by Mr. Sampson, an independent bridge engineer, that the bridge could be strengthened without demolition of the adjacent buildings? This matter is still causing concern in the town.
In Peebles, as the Minister may know from previous Questions and debates, over the last two years there has been a continuing dispute about the proposed alteration to the A72 route through the town. It is not a trunk route, which affects the matter somewhat in that any proposal there is subject to 75 per cent. grant. As a result of public agitation in the town, the county council reconsidered its proposal to demolish what was known as Buchan's House in order to widen the Cuddy bridge, and it has now come up with a new proposal—to demolish Buchan's House and then rebuild it a few yards further along the road.
This, I suggest, will be a scheme of considerable cost. My initial reaction, while certainly being more favourable to this proposal than I was to the original proposal for demolition of the house, is to question whether, in this time of economic stringency, we can afford a scheme of this kind. I should have thought that it might be better for the Department to examine further the suggested use of the old railway line for a new east-west route at some time in the future. I do not think that it is justified at present in Peebles.
Lastly, on transport in general, reference was made in a debate a little earlier this morning—if that is the right description of the time—to the Transport Act 1968. In an area like the Borders, the system of subsidies provided by local authorities is not really satisfactory when we have very large areas and relatively small rating authorities. There is anxiety about the fact that we are suffering a continual dwindling of bus services, and at the same time, in the Budget, we have had the statement that petrol tax for the private car is to rise further, as though the private car, as in London, were a luxury. In parts of the country such as that which I represent, the private car is very often a necessity. I hope that the Government will consider this matter seriously, and not treat transport as though it were transport in London mirrored all over the rest of the United Kingdom.
We are confident that development will go forward in the Borders, provided that the attention of the Scottish Office can occasionally be drawn to those matters which are of concern to us.

3.12 a.m.

Mr. Alan Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) for raising the issue of development of the Borders at this stage and for allowing me the opportunity of mentioning Berwick's problems. There can be no more eloquent testimony to the points that I want to make than the absence of any English Minister from the Government Front Bench. I welcome the presence of a Scottish Minister and look to him to remind his English colleagues of something which his own Department—the Scottish Development Department—has said several times,


namely, that Berwick is the key to the eastern Borders and that Border development at the eastern end is dependent upon what happens in Berwick.
I hope that the Minister will remind his colleagues that we are awaiting a decision on the Berwick shipyard and that there will be a great deal of anger if a favourable decision does not emerge within a few days.
But there are further points which the Minister must note. Berwick is operating under a handicap by virtue of being on the English side of the Border. The whole process of development on the Border, affecting both sides of it, is suffering as a result. I mention two respects in which this is happening. First, in relation to factory building, the system of locally determined schemes for capital allocation which operates in England, and not in Scotland, makes it much more difficult for towns on the English side of the Border to engage in advance factory projects.
But currently of even greater importance is the housing situation to which my hon. Friend has referred. There are problems on his side of the Border but they are even more acute on the English side. In housing terms, Berwick follows the pattern of Scottish towns, 60 per cent. of its dwellings being council owned. That is a high proportion of council houses. This means that under the Housing Finance Act any further major house building programme places an impossible burden on the ratepayers of the town concerned. Yet a recent Eastern Borders Development Association report indicated that the present industries in Berwick—not the new industries, but those already established—will generate a demand for upwards of 1,000 new houses. Those houses cannot be built without some injection of capital. On the Scottish side this can be provided by the SSHA. I should like the Minister to indicate that he is prepared to consider allowing the SSHA to operate in Berwick, because failing any alternative injection of capital into Berwick there is no means by which the level of house building expected for Borders development can be achieved. I hope that the Minister can give some assurance on that matter.

3.14 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): Even at a quarter past three in the morning, I do not think that I can give assurances that the SSHA would be enabled to operate in England as well as in Scotland. I do not think that I can answer most of the points raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Apart from anything else, there is no time to do that. But it is appreciated by my right hon. Friend that there is a certain anxiety about the decision being reached on the shipyard proposal. There was a certain amount of delay occasioned by the election. Otherwise, the decision on the inspector's report, which I understand was received at the end of January, would no doubt have been made by now. But my right hon. Friend is very much aware of this, and hopes to give a decision on the matter very shortly.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I am glad that he started by saying that the economic and general position in the Borders was basically very healthy. In the migration figures, compared with what they were a number of years ago, and in the unemployment figures one can find confirmation of the fact that the Borders have—in comparison with the rest of Scotland, and perhaps even in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom—been doing very well in recent years. We all much welcome that.
It is true that, as the hon. Gentleman said, our minds are at present directed in Scotland very much to North Sea oil developments, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not unaware of the continuing needs of the Borders of Scotland. I remind him, though he perhaps does not need reminding, that under the previous Labour Government in 1966 the Borders received development area status. We wish to see a continuation and enhancement of prosperity in the Borders.
On the regional employment premium, we have taken the first and important step in our announcement that the premium will be continued beyond September 1974. Tremendous uncertainty was being caused, and I think that that announcement by itself will have done a


good deal of good. We are considering the future of the premium, or a similar kind of labour subsidy. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to say anything about that tonight. In any case, it is by no means wholly, or perhaps even at all, a direct Scottish Office responsibility.
The extension of service industry and other suggestions will be taken into account, but I cannot commit my right hon. Friend as to what the final decision is likely to be.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am very distressed that there should have been such a substantial reduction in the number of public sector completions between 1970 and 1973. What has happened in the Borders is only a reflection of what has happened over the whole of Scotland. The situation causes the present Government considerable concern. I hope that we shall be able to build up the public sector housing figures during our term of office both in the Borders and elsewhere.
We recognise that the provision of housing is an integral part of planning for industrial development and expansion. This is particularly relevant in the Borders because, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, there are potentially many people who would be willing to return to the area. There are jobs either actually or potentially available for them. One of the key factors in getting those jobs going in the Borders is the provision of housing for the workers concerned.
My right hon. Friend recently authorised the SSHA to build an additional 50 houses in both Jedburgh and Kelso. That is only an early indication of the importance we attach to housing in the Borders and elsewhere. The SSHA has, in Scotland as a whole, a considerable programme committed ahead for the next few years, and much of the commitment is in relation to oil expansion. There is considerable urgency there.
I am not saying that we shall be able to give quite the priority to the Borders that the hon. Gentleman would like, but we shall do everything we can to improve the situation. There has been a certain amount of trouble about tenders, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but some preparatory work was done by the SSHA

in the intervening period, so the time has not been completely lost.
I agree that there has always been the potential danger that Tweedbank would draw away development and population from elsewhere, but I do not think that will happen or need happen. We are well aware of the danger of that happening. I remain, as were the previous Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, a firm supporter of the Tweedbank concept. We shall do everything possible to ensure, after what has been a protracted period of delay, that matters go ahead at Tweed-bank as rapidly as possible.
We accept the decision that was taken by the previous Government last December, that the new Borders hospital should be built as a single-phase and not a two-phase project. Unfortunately, last December we also had the public expenditure cuts, which affect the hospital building programme as well as other programmes of public expenditure in Scotland. We must also bear in mind the responsibility of the new Borders Health Board and the fact that planning for a hospital of such size and complexity is in any case a fairly lengthy process that is normally expected to take something like three years. I cannot commit myself to a timetable.
I am not sure that I know exactly what was written to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) last December in a ministerial capacity, but we recognise the importance of the Borders hospital. I answered a considerable number of representations about it when I was previously at the Scottish Office from 1966 to 1970. I know that it is a long-standing need in the Borders. That has not been denied. I hope that it will be able to go ahead and that there will not be any unnecessary delay. I am not able to give a precise timing tonight because there are at present considerable pressures on the hospital programme.
The hon. Member raised a number of questions about roads. I take his point about rural transport in general. The intention is that the present system of direct Government contribution under the Transport Act to local authority arrangements for grants to rural bus and


ferry services should be abolished and replaced by a transport supplement in the rate support grant system. We shall have an opportunity to discuss that matter and wider issues on rural transport when these proposals come to fruition.
So far as the—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Three o'clock a.m.